The Tribunal addressed disallowance arising from mismatch between ITR and tax audit report. It held that inadvertent reporting errors require verification, not outright denial of deduction.
The issue highlights mandatory annual return filing for LLPs. The key takeaway is that delayed filing attracts heavy daily penalties, making timely compliance essential.
The case involved additions for unexplained bank deposits where the assessee later produced authenticated NRE account evidence. ITAT remanded the matter, directing fresh consideration of documents and proper opportunity of hearing.
The Court dismissed the SLP due to a 390-day delay and absence of valid grounds. The ruling leaves intact the finding that interconnect payments are not royalty.
The High Court followed its earlier ruling that interconnect service charges are not taxable as royalty. The Revenues appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit and binding precedent.
The Court declined to interfere after finding no sufficient reason to disturb the High Court’s decision. The ruling reinforces limits on appellate intervention.
The Court set aside Section 148 notices after finding no tangible evidence supporting the existence of a Permanent Establishment. The ruling highlights the need for concrete material in reassessment.
The Tribunal rejected the refund claim after finding that export proceeds exceeded the declared FOB value. It held that such excess creates a presumption of duty being passed on, barring refund.
Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Allahabad) The appeal before the Tribunal arose from an Order-in-Appeal upholding a demand of ₹1,95,356 towards Service Tax for the financial year 2015–16, along with interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was registered for providing “Business Auxiliary Services.” Based on […]
The Tribunal ruled that payments made during investigation become duty once appropriated in adjudication. It rejected the argument that such payments remain deposits under protest. The decision reinforces that refund claims for such amounts are subject to limitation.
