Rohan Motors Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) The demand of service tax in respect of the amount collected on account of bouncing of cheques and cancellation of orders is also not sustainable. These amount are penal in nature and not towards consideration for any service. In this connection reliance can be placed […]
Rajesh Kiran D Vs. Joint Commissioner Of State Tax (Gujarat High Court) The matter, as on date, is at the stage of Form GST MOV-10. Thus, the writ applicant has been called upon to show-cause as to why the goods and the vehicle should not be confiscated under Section 130 of the Act. The writ […]
Rashmi Jalan Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) Penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB is bad in law as the showcause notice issued by the Assessing Officer does not specify the charge/s against the assessee for levy of penalty, as required by law. Thus, on this ground, the penalty is quashed. Even otherwise, […]
Muhammed Kochukudiyil Ishabeevi Alias Isha Shaefi Proprietress Nadiya Timbers Vs State Tax Officer (Intelligence) (Kerala High Court) Contention of the petitioner that she should be exempted from the requirement of paying interest and penalty while availing the option of payment of tax for the purposes of avoiding the show cause notice cannot be accepted. The […]
Orra Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The substantial issue for consideration now before us for the A.Y. 2012-13 is whether the provisions of section 79 of the Act can be invoked and examined in the assessment year in which the assessee claimed for carry forward of losses or in the assessment year […]
Sai Industries Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court) HC dispose of the present petition in the following terms: (a) copy of the order passed by the authorities, leading to the passing of the order of demand shall be supplied to the petitioner, through his counsel, by tomorrow; (b) as and when petitioner takes recourse […]
It was submitted that when the assessee has adopted a particular method of valuation as provided under the Act and Rules and in the absence of any material that such method was adopted to defraud the Revenue, merely because the Assessing Officer is of the view that NAV method alone has to be adopted is not a ground to reject the DCF method.
High court held that since the defaulter had transferred the property in favour of his brother’s wife, by appointing his own brother as the Power Agent to act on his behalf and such a sale has happened within six months from the date of which the demand of arrears of tax was made, it can be said there are no bona fides in such a transfer.
In re Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GST AAR Gujarat) As per the submission of the applicant, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) was established under the provisions of Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 by the State Government of Gujarat for the purpose of securing orderly establishment and organisation of industries in industrial areas and industrial estates […]
In re Rotex Fabric Pvt.Ltd. (GST AAR Gujarat) Question.1 Whether the product Non Woven Bags manufactured through the intermediate product Non Woven fabric classifiable under Heading No. 5603 are properly classifiable under Heading No. 6305 or under Heading No. 3923? Ans. The product Non Woven Bags manufactured through the intermediate product Non Woven plastic material […]
