CESTAT Chennai held that penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 not imposable in absence of deliberate intention to evade the payment of service tax.
ITAT Mumbai held that as and when the CPC has erred while processing the return of an assessee which causes tax liability on an assessee, then lawfully the appellate authorities should not cite procedure as a tool/ruse to deny the just claim of an assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act duly available as nexus between sale of gold jewellery and purchase of flat duly established.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services provided to the State of Jammu & Kashmir are not liable to service tax, as Section 64 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 excludes the applicability of service tax to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, hence these services are neither taxable nor exempted.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee furnished the return of income and audit report only after issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable as failure was due to ignorance and misguidance.
ITAT Varanasi held that principles of natural justice demand that both the parties, i.e. assessee as well as AO, shall be given opportunity of being heard, before being condemned and any prejudice is caused. Impugned order not satisfying the same is liable to be set aside.
ITAT Kolkata held that denial of deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act on the basis of vague and ambiguous reasons is unjustified. It is settled law that when assessee is entitled for deduction the same should not be disallowed merely because of any bona fide mistake or error.
ITAT Amritsar held that section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not empowered to allow addition of sundry debtors/ advance to growers. Accordingly, addition of the same deleted.
Calcutta High Court held that due to expiry of e-way bill, authorities are empowered to detain the goods and impose tax and penalties thereon as per provisions of section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Allahabad High Court held that GST registration cancellation notice is not in the prescribed format and didnt mention the date and time on which personal hearing is granted. Proceedings based on such notice is illegal, void and a nullity in eyes of law.
