Madras High Court dismissed writ petition, stating that if there is an alternative remedy available, the petitioner should pursue that remedy before resorting to a writ petition.
ITAT, held that if assessee voluntarily declares income during a survey and later includes it in their regular income tax return, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed.
CESTAT overturned order that required payment of Service Tax on expenses incurred for spares and materials used in provision of complimentary services during warranty period.
ITAT Pune allows vehicle expenses for cars used by director employees as business expenses in the case of M/s. Pushpak Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. The decision emphasizes that personal use by directors doesn’t classify as non-business use, citing relevant precedents. Gain insights into the case, the issues addressed, and the ITAT’s rationale. Stay informed on tax matters.
AAAR held that transaction between two GSTINs of same person would be considered as lease transaction and accordingly taxable as supply of services in terms of Section 7 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
HC ruled that provision of services by taxpayer to its holding company, as per terms of an agreement, does not categorize service provider as an intermediary.
AAAR held that, the assessee providing works contract services to Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, a government authority, would be liable to pay GST @ 18%.
CESTAT overturned the decision to demand excise duty based on the differential quantity of goods as per the ER-1 returns and the audited books of accounts. The tribunal determined that the discrepancy between the values mentioned in the RG-1 and the physical stock statement provided by the assessee was inherently inaccurate, as both values were estimated.
HC direct appellant to file application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration within the specified time under Section 30 of the CGST Act in terms of specific procedure notified vide Notification dated 31.03.2023
HC set aside SCN issued under Section 148A(b) & consequential orders on the grounds that the opportunity of being heard provided at first instance should be an effective opportunity, since, the power of reopening an assessment is a ‘power’ which should be exercised with adequate reason.
