CESTAT Mumbai rules extended limitation cannot apply for service tax demand on sub-contractors due to conflicting decisions, emphasizing procedural norms.
Held that there was substantive correspondence between the petitioner and the Assessing Officer on all materials and subject matter of reopening and all such materials had formed part of the disclosure by the petitioner.
Orissa HC orders CCTV installation in all Odisha police stations by March 2025 and mandates adherence to SOP for interactions with Armed Forces personnel.
Assessment and penalty orders issued against assessee was set aside considering pathology reports of assessee as a valid reason for failing to respond to various income tax notices.
CIT (Appeals) held that assessee qualified as an ‘intermediary,’ making the services rendered ineligible for classification as ‘Export of Services’ under the Service Tax Rules, 1994.
The court held that the other three companies were also carrying out large-scale projects compared to assessee, making them unsuitable for comparison or setting industry standards.
Calcutta High Court held that provisions of sub-section (5) section 245C of Income Tax Act is effective only from 1st February 2021, hence, application before Settlement Commission prior to that date cannot be held as invalid.
Kerala High Court held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, for non-compliance with provisions of section 44AB, not imposable since reasonable cause for belated filing of audit report established.
The appellants before this Court were originally engaged by the Central Water Commission on part-time, ad-hoc terms. Applicant No.1 was appointed as a Safaiwali in 1993, Applicant No.2 as a Safaiwali in 1998, and Applicant No.3 as a Safaiwali in 1999.
In this regard, the petitioner was guided by Central Board of Direct Taxes (“ CBDT” for short) Circular No. 7 of 2018, dated 20 December 2018 for the A.Y. 2016-2017 issued under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act.
