ITAT Bangalore held that since assessee filed voluminous documents in paperbooks during the course of hearing before ITAT, the matter is remitted back to CIT(A) for consideration of documents furnished by the assessee and fresh decision as per law.
ITAT Surat held that employee’s contribution towards PF and ESI cannot be allowed if it is deposited after the due dates under those Acts but before filing of return. Accordingly, disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) confirmed and appeal dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that the work in the nature of laying down of “Optical Fibre Cable Network” to benefit the defence forces for better communication is exempt from service tax since the ultimate beneficiary of the service is Government of India.
Delhi High Court held that Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method when reseller imports goods from its Associated Enterprise (AE) and the goods are sold in the same condition without any value addition.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 duly imposed since the appellant had intentionally mis-declared the nature of the goods in the Bill of Entry (BOE).
AML Motors appealed against a penalty for delay in appointing a Company Secretary. The penalty was reduced after considering the unintentional delay in compliance.
NCLAT Delhi held that application under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC) of operational creditor not maintainable due to pre-existing dispute. Further, there was no requirement for the Adjudicating Authority to go under the skin of dispute
Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs DO No. 51/News Letter/CH(IC)/2024 Dated: 16th December, 2024 Dear Colleague, Amidst the enchanting charm of Kochi, often referred to as the “Queen of the Arabian Sea,” the 2nd Conference on Review of Coastal Preventive formations was successfully convened, addressing […]
ITAT Agra held that dismissal of appeal as per provisions of section 249(4)(b) for non-payment of advance tax unjustified since entre addition made by AO was challenged and there was no other income which is above threshold limit of being taxable.
NCLAT Delhi held that held that considering the text of Section 60(5)(c) of IBC liquidators can ask for the refund of the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) amount, which was given by the Corporate Debtor towards margin money for securing a PBG.
