CESTAT Hyderabad held that service tax demand on the service of Multi System Operator provided to cable TV operator is sustainable. Further, since there was suppression of facts to evade payment of service tax, extended period of limitation is duly invoked.
CIRP against the Corporate Debtor-Rajesh Cityspaces Private Limited commenced on 15.01.2024. Mr. Ajit Gyanchand Jain- Respondent No.1 was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
Madras High Court held that confiscation of crude gold bar justified as source of income for having purchased gold bar not proved. Thus, burden of proof u/s. 123 of the Customs Act not discharged.
ITAT Delhi held that invocation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act not justifiable as income is estimated on the basis of gross profit rate. Thus, disallowance u/s. 40A(3) set aside and appeal stands allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that Private Discretionary Trust whose income is chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate is not leviable to pay surcharge if the slab rates are below Rs. 50 Lakhs. Accordingly, surcharge is not leviable in the present case and appeal is allowed.
Delhi High Court held that bail application of accused is rejected as there is reasonable ground to believe the accused is found guilty in illegal mining and money laundering. Further, plea to grant bail on medical grounds also rejected as accused condition is stable and regularly reviewed by doctor.
The appellant appears to have given a discount on the gross value of the exports which was reflected in the invoice raised by the appellant as well and hence, appellant received 97% of the gross value of the export in its bank account (Bank of Maharashtra).
Madras High Court held that denial of benefit of Notification No. 153/93-Cus dated 13.08.1993 to Software Technology Park on imports undertaken prior to CMDA approval not justified as substantial requirement of notification satisfied.
Madras High Court held that bank account which is designated pension account is exempted from any attachment for recovery of dues and attachment of such account is in violation of the provisions of the Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Act, 1871.
The present appeal is preferred by the assessee. Notably, assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.54,39,870/- on account of alleged difference received from the contracts on the basis of entries in Form 26AS.
