Oceanic Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner or Central Excise And Service Tax (CESTAT Chandigarh) CESTAT Chandigarh held that Indian Company engaged in promoting and marketing services provided by Australian Company is eligible for the benefit of the export of services. Facts- The appellants, M/s Oceanic Consultants Private Limited, have been engaged by M/s Oceanic Consultants […]
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that service of appellate order u/s. 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the state of Andhra Pradesh should be in both English and Hindi. Passing of such order in only Hindi language is not permissible.
NCLT Bengaluru held that claims filed at a belated stage after approval of resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) cannot be allowed. Thus, resolution professional rightly rejected such belated claims.
ITAT Jaipur condoned delay of 108 days in filing of an appeal, however, imposed cost of Rs. 8,000/- to be deposited in ‘Prime Minister Relief Fund’ (PMRF) as the appellant was not diligent enough to timely file an appeal.
ITAT Bangalore condoned delay of 601 days on the ground that assessee was not having access to mail id mentioned in Form 35 and hence assessee was not aware about ex-parte passing of appellate order. Thus, delay condoned on reasonable cause shown.
Patna High Court held that for migrating PAN to new AO, due to change in address, a written request to existing AO must be made. Such procedure needs to be followed for change of jurisdiction.
Held that the appellant has satisfied all the conditions for treating the service as export of service but there is a need to verify whether the service tax paid has been recovered or not from M/s. Aban Singapore Pte. Ltd.
ITAT Hyderabad held that CIT(A) without examining the historical/ empirical data of expenditure incurred by the assessee for rectification / repair of transformers cannot approve the provision thereof. Accordingly, matter remanded back to CIT(A).
ITAT Hyderabad held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) on the ground of non-deposition of self-assessment tax by the assessee needs re-verification since assessee incurred losses and therefore has a reason for not depositing the self-assessment tax. Hence, matter remanded.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that order of PCIT invoking section 263 of the Income Tax Act set aside as conditions necessary for invoking Section 263 of the Act, i.e., the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, are not satisfied.
