ITAT Bangalore held that interest on deposits kept with scheduled banks only the net interest i.e. the interest income reduced by the administrative expenses and other proportionate expenditure to earn the said income had to be brought to tax u/s 56 of the I.T. Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that duty passed on via supplementary invoice is eligible for cenvat credit as it is not due to reason of any suppression of fact, fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement, etc and hence not barred by provisions of Rule 57AE of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Simply rejecting on a technical ground amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the assessee. Therefore, we are remanding back the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merit.
Balkrishna Industries Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The petitioner has prayed for direction to refund of Rs. 21,71,74,611/-, which is unutilised input tax credit to be refunded without any Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) debit with interest. Section 16 of the Act allows registered person to take credit on input tax […]
ITAT Rajkot held that dividend income and interest earned on surplus held with cooperative bank would be eligible for deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
Reliance Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) CESTAT Mumbai held that insurance premium paid for group insurance to cover employees opting for Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) amounts to input service and accordingly cenvat credit available under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Facts- The appellant, M/s Reliance Industries Ltd, manufacturer of […]
The show cause notice issued to the petitioner in this case shows that the same has been issued in Form GST Reg 31, which is the form for issuing a notice regarding suspension of registration.
ITAT Rajkot held that service of notice to the last known address of the assessee cannot be held as invalid service of notice as assessee has left the place to unknown location without informing anyone.
When investigation has already commenced prior to the filing of application, the ARA shall not admit the application as per proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 98, we are of the view that the ARA should not have admitted the application in the instant case and issued its ruling.
For the technical fault is in the department’s system, petitioner should not be suffered and victimized respect unless the respondents’ specific case with specific record is that the aforesaid objection of the petitioner was uploaded beyond the time granted.
