Madras High Court held that request for simultaneous trial both in PMLA and in predicate offence registered under IPC not accepted since both the offence are distinguishable and not connected with each other.
ITAT Kolkata held that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules should be restricted to the dividend yielding investments. Accordingly, AO directed to re-compute disallowance.
Delhi High Court held that supply of helicopters to Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration without transfer of right to use not exigible to tax under section 2(g)(vi) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [CST Act].
In the case abovementioned ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the matter to CIT (A) after considering that assessee could not file evidence before CIT (A) in lack of service of notices.
In a recent ruling Hon’ble Kerala HC have held that refund due to the petitioner for the year 2016-17 could not have been adjusted against the demand for 2015-16 when there was a stay on account of the provisions contained in Section 60 (1A) of the KVAT Act.
Delhi High Court held that levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on ocean freight is unconstitutional. Accordingly, directed department to refund service tax paid on ocean freight during April to June 2017.
Return for AY 2002-03 was filed on 30.10.2002 and an intimation under Section 143(1) was issued on 19.12.2003. A Revised return was filed on 23.03.2004 for which notice u/s 143 (2) can be issued up to 31.03.2005. AO issued notice u/s 148 on 09.07.2004.
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 09.11.2024 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay penalty of Rs.6, 18,656/- as proposed in GST MOV 07 under Section 129(1)A of the CGST Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that section 275(1A) of the Income Tax Act empowers AO to pass penalty order by enhancing or reducing penalty on the basis of assessment as revised by giving effect to orders passed by appellate authority or courts.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the income of beneficiaries of trust cannot be treated as income in the hands of the trust. Accordingly, disallowance under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act not justified.
