Jharkhand HC quashes demand on GST transitional credit by Steel Authority of India, restoring Rs 30.29 Cr. to the petitioner in a case of VAT credit transition.
CESTAT Delhi held that air craft engine stand imported by the appellant would deserve classification under CTI 8609 00 00 and not under CTI 8716 39 00. Accordingly, order passed by the Principal Commissioner is set aside.
Since the business sales were accepted as genuine and only the purchases were routed through accommodation entries, only a part of the purchases needed adjustment to reflect possible inflation of expenses confirming the restriction of bogus purchase addition to 5% and when additions were made on an estimated basis, penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed.
ITAT Delhi held that services rendered under Intra Group Service Agreement do not make available technical knowledge and hence would not fall within the definition of FTS as provided under Article 13(4) of India UK DTAA and hence not taxable in India.
IFSCA amends bullion market guidelines in IFSC, removing net-worth requirement for all ‘Customers’ to boost participation on IIBX. Effective immediately.
Taxpayers face issues with Karnataka PT portal due to OTP failures. Association requests technical fixes and 3-month due date extension before April 30, 2025.
DGFT requests comments on aligning export policy (ITC-HS 2022) with Finance Act 2025 amendments. Stakeholders invited to provide feedback within 7 days.
SEBI cautions public on opinion trading platforms, stating they are unregulated and not covered by investor protection mechanisms under securities laws.
An assessment order passed by AO was quashed on the reason that assessment year was beyond the ten-year outer ceiling limit prescribed by Section 153A. Assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by AO and consequent passing of the Assessment Order. Assessee challenged the issuance of notice u/s 153A for the assessment year 2008-09 on the reasoning that the said notice was issued beyond the period of limitation.
Tribunal had set aside an order by CIT (Appeals) directing AO to recalculate the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) demand under section 194 C as the original demand had already been nullified by the Delhi High Court, making the CIT(A)’s directions untenable and CIT(A) erred by ignoring the High Court’s judgment and basing its decision on a different TDS provision (Section 194C) than the one applied by the AO (Section 194I).
