ITAT Chennai held that it is fact that under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020 declarant cannot challenge sum payable before any appellate forum however once the declarant violates condition of DTVSVS Act 2020 the same can be revived by the Department.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that genuineness of source of purchase and sale of shares thereof remained unexplained and hence concluded that the sale of such shares were only accommodation entry and accordingly addition of entire sale consideration upheld.
CESTAT Chennai held that levy of excise on bagasse and press mud was under litigation, hence the amount of credit reversed under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has been reversed under protest and refund claim of such reversal done under protest is not hit by time-bar.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of Section 9 application holding that advance payment made by Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor does not fall within the four corners of the Operational Debt is unsustainable as it is settled low that advance payment is covered within the definition of Operational Debt.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that all the services provided in relation to power transmission is exempted from service tax as per notification 45/2010-ST.
Supertex Industries Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undoubtedly, the assessee was referred to the board of industrial and financial Reconstruction Under the provisions of the sick industrial Companies act. Assessee was declared a sick company u/s 3 [1] [o] of the SICA. Rehabilitation scheme of the assessee was approved by the board of industrial and […]
It is not in dispute that the assessee accounted for provision of interest twice by mistake and on realising such mistake, necessary rectification entries were passed in the subsequent year and the same was offered as income.
Bindu Premanandh Vs ADVS (Kerala High Court) CIT (Appeals) has not noted all the sequential events in the explanation given by the assessee. But has arrived at a quick finding for extending the relief under Section 54F of the Act. Turning to the findings of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the Tribunal […]
AAAR upheld the ruling passed by AAR of not providing the benefit of exemption under entry no. 3 of the Notification 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017 wherein the payment was made for medical insurance premium for employees, pensioners, and their family members.
The review of the refund order shall be completed at least 30 days before the expiry of the time period allowed for filing appeal under Section 107(2) of the HGST Act and recommendations should be sent to the Commissioner accordingly.
