The issue involved denial of representation through counsel during GST proceedings. The Court held that personal appearance cannot be insisted upon when law permits authorised representation.
The tribunal examined whether imported rubber is liable to additional duty equivalent to cess. It upheld the levy by following earlier decisions and the appellant’s own case. The key takeaway is that consistent precedents were applied to sustain the demand.
The court examined whether road tax and penalties could be demanded for issuing an NOC. It held that such charges are not applicable when only an NOC is sought. The key takeaway is that NOC issuance cannot be linked to tax liabilities meant for registration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer went beyond revisionary directions by including additional issues. It ruled that such excess additions were invalid and liable to be deleted.
The court examined whether confiscation under GST law can be ordered without hearing the affected party. It held that absence of personal hearing violates statutory requirements, making the order invalid.
The tribunal examined whether sales receipts can be treated as unexplained cash credits. It held that documented sales recorded in books cannot be taxed under Section 68.
The Tribunal dismissed the challenge to reassessment proceedings as no arguments were presented by the assessee. The ruling highlights that absence of pleadings can lead to automatic rejection of grounds.
ACIT Vs Bharat Rail Automations Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Nagpur) The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur, arose from an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowing deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee for Assessment Year 2015–16. The assessee, engaged in design, development, […]
The Court held that ongoing disputes regarding defective goods and account reconciliation existed prior to the demand notice. It ruled that such disputes bar admission of insolvency proceedings under Section 9 of the IBC.
The tribunal examined whether repair and maintenance services provided to Naval Authorities are taxable. It held that such services are not liable to service tax as they are not linked to commercial activities.
