ITAT Mumbai held that the cash deposited is out of the gross receipts and that once gross receipts are disputed then no addition is sustainable under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent and addition deleted.
Madras High Court held that based on auditor’s advice, the petitioner failed to comply with GST return provisions. Accordingly, reasons provided for non-compliance with GST provisions appears to be genuine and hence order cancelling registration set aside.
Delhi High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application and held that statutory requirement of prior approval under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 not attracted in case of trap case.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund claim filed beyond statutory time limit of 6 months stipulated under section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994 is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee dismissed.
CESTAT Delhi held that service tax correctly demanded on the basis of Form 26AS since the appellant has not filed any returns and is also not registered with service tax department. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
The learned counsel for the respondents contented that, since the petitioner have dealt with fake invoices, the respondent authority have blocked the Input Tax Credit.
ITAT Kolkata held that the transaction cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act since the transaction of the shares were shown as stock in trade in assets side of the balance sheet and sale as revenue in profit & loss account.
Overlooking COO without following procedure set out in Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Member States of ASEAN and the Republic of India) Rules, 2009 is untenable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Lemoneez, being juice of single citrus pulp, is rightly classifiable under Tariff Item No. i.e. CTH 2009 31 00 instead of CTH 2106 as alleged by department. Hence, differential duty demand is set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that expense of air travel of service provider who provided Management Consultancy Service is not includible in value for discharge service tax under reverse charge mechanism [RCM]. Accordingly, appeal allowed and demand set aside.
