Kumar Construction Vs DCIT (ITAT Patna) Claim of the assessee firm rejected by the AO merely on the ground that capital has not been introduced by the partners through banking account is unjustified. Therefore, it is perverse and liable to be rejected and to substantiate the claim of assessee, the AR relied on the decision […]
Akums Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Uttarakhand High Court) Whether the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand in holding that the revisionist is not entitled to reduce the levy of Central Sales Tax @ 1% for the financial year 2010-11 onwards) after the Capital Investment of Plant and Machinery, having […]
Emami Paper Mills Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) CESTAT held that mere statement in the Order-In-Original dated 08.06.2016 that the appellant had suppressed material facts from the Department and that the purported contravention had been detected only during audit was insufficient justification for invoking the extended period of limitation. the evidences […]
RPP Infra Projects Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT held that department has to refrain from issuing Show Cause Notice if the appellant pays up the service tax along with interest as ascertained by himself or by the officers. In the present case, the appellant has paid up the service tax […]
Kaliannan Ganesan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) It transpired that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.13.30 Lacs post demonetization as tabulated assessment order. Accordingly, the assessee was directed to substantiate the source of the same. The assessee is stated to be engaged in poultry farm business and trading of eggs. AO held that there was […]
South West Drilling and Infrastructure Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITGAT find that the facts and circumstances narrate in the order of the authorities below clearly indicate that it is classic case of circuitatious rotation of unaccounted money. The lender has no identity in as much it is nonexistent its sources of credits itself is […]
Circular No. 11/2016-Cus. dated 15.03.2016 has not personified any violator individually since it had categorically stated that cases involving seizer and confiscation would be out of the purview of the Circular and therefore the order passed by the Commissioner in allowing the benefit contained in Section 28(6)(i) to the importer company and its Managing Director and denying the same to the Appellant CHA who is charged under same penal provisions under Section 112, 114(A), 114(A)(A) in the same case is unsustainable in law and equity.
Sayar Cars Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Commercial Taxes Building (Madras High Court) It is an admitted position that none of the assessment orders or, for the matter, the show cause notices, reveal any application of mind to the aspect of wilful suppression. The officer merely proceeds on the fact that there was a difference […]
Prism Cement-Unit II Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Madhya Pradesh High Court) A bare reading of the expression “Business” u/S.2(d) of M.P. VAT Act, 2002 reveals that tax is leviable inter alia on the event of manufacturer whether or not such event is carried on with motive to make gain or profit and whether or […]
M J Gold Pvt Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Delhi) Admittedly, the Customs Authority while verifying the origin of goods had issued a questionnaire and denied the benefit on the ground that the complete questionnaire was not answered by the appellant creating a doubt about the Country of origin Certificate. The perusal […]
