Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
Understand the Bombay High Court’s ruling on PCIT vs Kimberly Clark Lever Private Limited case regarding the reference to TPO and the scrutiny assessment as per the Income Tax Act 1961.
The J&K High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice on banned yarn shawl exports, asserting that the case’s jurisdiction lies in Delhi, not J&K.
Delhi High Court quashes a ₹10 crore tax demand, stating that an assessment order cannot be solely issued against one of the multiple legal heirs of a deceased taxpayer.
CESTAT Mumbai overturns service tax demand against Kellogg India, asserting that unpaid salary or notice pay recovery isn’t subject to service tax.
In a crucial verdict, the Bombay High Court allows BOCW cess refund to GE T and D India, emphasizing that supply contracts are outside the BOCW Cess Act’s purview.
The CESTAT Kolkata has dismissed allegations of suppression and quashed a service tax demand in the Bimal Auto Agency Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX case, providing significant implications for the treatment of incentive-based transactions.
The ITAT Kolkata recently deleted an addition made on interest receipt by the CIT(A) in the case of Guruji Mercantile Pvt. Limited Vs ITO, citing lack of jurisdiction.
The ITAT ruling emphasizes the necessity of incorporating a Document Identification Number (DIN) in tax communication, as stipulated in the CBDT Circular 2019. Explore the detailed analysis and implications of the case.
A thorough review of the CESTAT Ahmedabad case between Kandla Port Trust and C.C.E. & Kutch (Gandhidham) where the CESTAT quashed the order as the SCN was time-barred.
The issue at hand was the refund claim by Tata Motors, following a price increase and subsequent reversal due to non-acceptance by the buyer. The court had to decide whether the excise duty paid on the increased price could be refunded under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
