CESTAT Kolkata held that when there is no other price available at the time of clearance of the goods from the factory to depot on stock transfer basis, the only way available is to determine the assessable value based on the best judgment method.
ITAT Mumbai held that as service tax doesn’t partake the character of income, the same cannot be included in the gross receipt of the assessee for the purpose of computing the presumptive taxation u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act.
The case of M. Pandidurai Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in CESTAT Chennai sheds light on the significance of upholding principles of natural justice in tax proceedings, setting a significant legal precedent.
The recent Orissa High Court ruling in Laxman Barik Vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax case, where it stayed GST demand and condoned delay due to absence of GST Tribunal, is a significant legal precedent in GST law interpretation.
CESTAT Bangalore modifies penalties in case of import valuation discrepancies. Learn more about the details of Sri Sai Graphics Vs Commissioner of Customs.
Unravel the details of the CESTAT Mumbai case – Satyasai Human Resource Solutions Vs Commissioner of Service Tax. CESTAT grants refund on service tax advance paid in line with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules.
CESTAT Chennai held that contract is for performance of the work and not for supply of manpower. Further, payments are for the works executed on tonnage basis/ unit basis and not on man hours or per person basis. Accordingly, service tax not payable on ‘Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services’ (MRSAS).
ITAT Mumbai held that once the transaction is duly recorded in the books of accounts and due explanation with regard to source of loan transaction is provided, addition u/s 69A towards unexplained money unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards payment of stamp duty in cash is not sustainable as source of income such as tuition income, interest income and rental income which is converting to in cash since 20 to 25 years and she is continuously filing her return of income with the department.
Gauhati High Court in case of recovery of royalty stayed the recovery by stating that as an ad-interim measure no coercive action shall be initiated against the petitioner for recovery of amount till the next returnable date.
