CESTAT Delhi held that amount deposited prior to adjudication but not held as payable under SVLDR Scheme is liable to be refunded back to the appellant.
Chartered Accountants Association Surat (CASS) Comprehensive Pre-Budget 2023-24 Memorandum by CAAS highlighting hardships and areas of improvement where Income-Tax can become taxpayer friendly tax. Sr. No. Existing provision under the I. T. Act, 1961 Section 2 of Finance act: – Tax rates for non-corporate Tax payers 1 Difficulty / Issue 1) Tax rates for corporates […]
In re Green Infra Clean Wind Power Limited (CAAR Delhi) M/s. Green Infra Clean Wind Power Limited, 5th Floor, Tower-C, Building No. 8, DLF Cyber city, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, a company having PAN AAJCG7352B (applicant, in short), has filed an application dated 26.09.2022 seeking advance ruling under section 28-H of the Customs Act, 1962 before the […]
ITAT Delhi held that expenditure related to the goods carriages taken on hire from the open market for carrying out the transportation activities is available to the assessee even if the receipts are subjected to taxation under provisions of section 44AE of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(E) did not enjoy the power to impose any conditions on his own while granting the approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act (other than what is stipulated in law).
Tube Investment of India Limited (GST AAR Uttarakhand) a. Whether the nominal amount of recoveries made by the Applicant from the employees who are provided food in the factory canteen would be considered as a ‘Supply’ by the applicant under the precisions of Section 7 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Yes, it […]
ITAT Mumbai held that order of Commissioner passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act is not appelable before the ITAT. Such order can either be appealed directly to the Sectary, CBDT or can be challenged before High Court.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that duty not leviable on scrap which is neither generated from the manufacturing nor generated from the cenvatable input or capital goods.
CESTAT Chennai held that the respondent is not contesting the duty demand and penalty and the entire duty and penalty is also paid by the respondent. Then, remanding the matter of re-examining whether the SCN issuing authority is proper or not is totally unnecessary and uncalled for.
It is observed that, in certain cases, consequent to the issue of intimation u/s 245, the assessees had responded on the demand portal that the demands are incorrect, in as much as that the demands are stayed by Assessing Officer/ITAT/High Court.
