The provisions of the Customs Act and that of the HCCR do not absolve the custodian of the responsibilities as mentioned in these Regulations to be observed by the Custodians itself, the CESTAT do not find any infirmity with the order under challenge where simultaneously penalty has been imposed upon the Appellant as well.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No. 3/2020 dated April 27, 2021] under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India took suo motu cognizance considering the challenges faced by the litigants on account of COVID-19 and restored […]
Tapas Kumar Basak Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax, International Taxation-II & Ors (Calcutta High Court) Tapas Kumar Basak (Petitioner) has challenged the impugned order dated January 25, 2007 passed by the Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), Kolkata (Respondent) treating the Petitioner as ‘Resident’ for having stayed in India for 182 days during the […]
CESTAT applied the User Test to the facts in hand and held that the structural items used in the fabrication of support structures would fall within the ambit of Capital Goods as contemplated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, hence will be entitled to the Cenvat Credit.
Babu Khan Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) In Babu Khan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. there were a total of 121 Writ Petitions filed by the Liquor Vendors seeking waivers on the annual guarantee fee and tax relief for the second wave time period of COVID-19. In the case, the Petitioners contended […]
In Directorate of Enforcement v. Raj Singh Gehlot [ECIR/14/HQ-STF/2019 dated September 10, 2021], Raj Singh Gehlot (the Applicant) moved a bail application for grant of regular bail but the bail plea was dismissed by Hon’ble Patiala House Court. In this case the Hon’ble Patiala House Court dismissed the bail plea of Applicant, the owner of […]
Universal Buildrise Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) M/S. Universal Buildrise Private Limited (Appellant) filed an appeal against Order dated September 30, 2019 of the Ld. CIT(A)-9, New Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-2017. The Appellant filed its return of income declaring loss and paid taxes on book profit under Minimum Alternate Tax […]
Jodhpur Bench held that mere time gap between withdrawals and deposits cannot be a sole basis for rejecting the explanation of the Appellant as there was no material that amount so withdrawn had been utilized somewhere else. The Court believed that the explanation by the Appellant was reasonable and therefore, directed that the addition so made must be deleted.
First issue is involved relates to the payment of service tax on reverse charge basis in respect of GTA services received by appellant. The appellant has paid the service tax as soon as it was pointed by the auditor and again in cash when it was pointed out that it has to be paid in cash. In these circumstances, CESTAT not find that there was any malafide on the part of the appellant. Therefore, benefit of section 80 should be extended for the appellant and penalty under section 76 and 78 are set aside. The appellant have already conceded that they are not contesting the payment of duty.
Single Bench Order w.r.t Exemption provided to contribution upto Rs. 7,500/- PM to RWA under challenge before DB In Union of India v. M/S TVH Lumbini Square Owners Association [W.A.Nos.2318 and 2321 of 2021 dated September 09, 2021], the current appeal has been filed against the Ld. Single Judge Bench ruling provided in M/S TVH […]
