ITAT Mumbai held that merely because an assessee is registered u/s 80G of the Act will not automatically mean that such Trust cannot have any religious purpose and therefore cannot avail benefit of Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
Supreme Court held that levy of penalty on the basis of a show cause notice containing a completely erroneous category of service is illegal.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as the contract is for job-work carried out by the appellant for the service recipient. The same doesn’t fall under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service and therefore the service tax demand unsustainable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that fact of clandestine manufacture and clearance thereof is established, however, since there is no clinching tangible evidence or any corroborative evidence to establish the appellant as a manufacturer, liability of duty, penalty cannot be fastened.
ITAT Chandigarh held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as special audit completed u/s. 142(2A) and audit report submitted within the extended time limit provide by AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that in case of bogus purchases, if the sale is not in doubt, then only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be subject to tax in the hands the assessee. Accordingly, CIT(A) restricting disallowance to 25% of the addition justified.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that suo moto re-credit duly allowable as eligibility of cenvat credit on outward transportation has attained finality and decided in favour of the appellant.
Delhi High Court held that any non-compliance to the mandate of section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) would vitiate the arrest itself.
Madras High Court provided benefit of notification no. 03/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 granting extension of time limit for application for revocation of cancellation of registration even if registration was cancelled on 11.05.2023. Accordingly, directed to restore GST registration.
CESTAT Mumbai held that in case of premature availment of cenvat credit on capital goods the recovery proceedings under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) would not sustain and only interest liability will arise.
