ITAT Jaipur held that non-compliance inspite of repeated notices/ summons has led to gross negligence on the part of the assessee and accordingly matter restored back and cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed for negligent attitude during income tax proceedings.
Applicability of relevant provisions of SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015 after Migration of an issuer from SME Emerge platform to Main Board.
Madras High Court held that section 125 is a residuary provision and as there are three specific non-compliances qua statutory requirements, penalty u/s. 125 of Rs. 25,000 each can be invoked for such non-compliances.
In re Puranik Builders Limited (GST AAAR Maharashtra) Insofar as the challenge to the levy of service tax on taxable services as defined under section 65(105) (zzzzu) is concerned, we do not find any merit in the contention that there is no element of service involved in the preferential location charges levied by a builder. […]
In re Seshadri Srikanth (The I.L.E.CO) (GST AAR Tamilnadu) Applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of the Act. Whether supply of scientific and technical instruments, apparatus, equipment to their customer M/S. Mahesh Value Products Pvt. Ltd. is eligible for concessional rate of GST @ 5% as per the Notification No. 45/2017-Central Tax (Rate) […]
HC held that impugned amendment to Rule 89(4) (C) of the CGST Rules, as amended vide Para 8 of Notification 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, unfair, unjust and ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and Section 54 of the CGST
CCE, Aurangabad Vs Videocon Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court) Sub- Whether LCD panels are to be classified as part of television sets or audio players or independently for charging Customs duty? The Apex Court in this case was dealing with the classification of LCD Panels which were imported and were to be used as part of […]
It is seen that the assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts. The first item is of Rs. 20,50,000/- claimed to have been received from farmers out of advances made in the preceding year.
ITAT Delhi held that issuance of notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the particular limb under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated concludes that the notice is issued in a stereotyped manner without applying mind and accordingly imposition of penalty is bad in law.
The Constitutional Bench ruled that allows Circumstantial Evidence did not dilute the requirement of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since there were no circumstances brought on record which would prove the demand for gratification, therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) would not be attracted.
