CESTAT Chennai held that Revenue cannot take a different stand when the Revenue has accepted the principles laid down in a previous case. Accordingly, demand cannot be sustained.
Calcutta High Court held that non-filing of GST return vis-à-vis cancellation of GST registration, an opportunity of hearing should be granted to the petitioner who failed to file the GST return as incurred heavy loss and accordingly was under tremendous mental stress.
ITAT Chennai held that a small delay of 9 days in filing of an appeal condoned on the basis of reasonable cause as Chartered Accountant was busy in filing of return of Income and GST returns.
CESTAT Delhi held that additional incentive received by the dealer for meeting certain targets is in the form of trade discount and is not a payment for any service. Accordingly, service tax not leviable on the same.
Rajasthan High Court granted bail for person accused for alleged offences under GST as main accused has already been released on bail.
Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration in respect of exemption u/s 2(15) or section 11 in respect of publication of advertisement for consideration in light of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority.
Vipin Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi held that benefit under section 54B of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied on mere fact that property was valued by the registered authority as a non-agricultural land for the purpose of stamp paper. Facts- The AIR information from sub registrar, Hapur Second in the case […]
CESTAT Chennai held that Custom House Agent (CHA) cannot be expected to examine and ensure the nature of the goods in the consignment. Accordingly, penalty u-s 114 of the Customs Act cannot be levied on CHA alleging that they didn’t ensure correct classification of the goods.
CESTAT Delhi held that responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed his operations.
ITAT Pune held that expenditure incurred on repairs and renovation of the asset is revenue expenditure as no new asset has been created.
