M/s. Servicenow Software Development India Pvt Ltd fined for not obtaining board approval for loans, totaling ₹3,90,000 in penalties.
CESTAT Kolkata rules in favor of Aurora Fine Arts in a bonafide mistake case, exempting from penalty for a misdeclared EPCG license value, acknowledging voluntary duty and interest payment.
NCLAT approves Kuldeep Singh & Anr’s private sale against Sainsons Pulp and Papers Ltd. liquidator, highlighting full payment with interest after initial delay.
ITAT Ahmedabad has allowed the appeal of Kanta Govind Singh against the levy of a late filing fee under section 234E for a TDS return. The appellant, a senior citizen, had promptly deposited the TDS amount but had inadvertently filed the return late due to old age and human error. The ITAT deemed the procedural error as not warranting the imposition of a heavy late filing fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi dismisses Drishti Apparels’ appeal against disallowance of PF and ESI deduction due to delayed deposit, aligning with Supreme Court decision.
ITAT held that the genuineness of the expenditure was not in doubt, and the first appellate authority erred in ignoring Form 3CL issued by the competent authority. The disallowance of Rs.29,05,724/- was deemed unsustainable and deleted.
Calcutta High Court mandates re-evaluation of ETC Agro Processing’s time-barred IGST refund, overturning denial based on an unconstitutional notification.
ITAT Bangalore has quashed assessment order in case of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences against ACIT. Grounds for invalidation were non-service of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) of Income-tax Act.
Case between Jai Venktesh Concast Private Limited and the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, was heard by the Calcutta High Court. The writ petitioners filed an intra-court appeal against the order of the learned Single Bench, which directed them to pay 20% of the disputed tax for interim protection from recovery.
CESTAT Chennai upheld the order in favor of Usha International Ltd in a case against the Commissioner of Customs. The appeal was dismissed on grounds of limitation due to the department’s failure to submit the date of communication of the order.
