Madras High Court held that if there is substantial compliance, denial of benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) which is a beneficial scheme and framed with the larger public interest of bringing down the cascading effect of multiple taxes ought not to be frustrated on the ground of technicalities.
CESTAT held that in a case where the assessee is a manufacturer of dutiable goods as well as exempted goods and it is impractical to maintain separate accounts of common inputs used in manufacture of dutiable goods and exempted goods the only practical way of maintaining accounts is by corresponding credit and debit entries, reversing proportionate amount of cenvat credit.
Bombay High Court held that for an assessment to be reopened beyond a period of four years there must an omission or failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and should not merely be the change of opinion of Assessing Officer (AO).
AAR ruled that bus operator is entitled to avail ITC on rent bill issued by service provider, who provides buses on rent charging GST at the rate of 18%, subject to fulfillment of conditions stipulated under Section 16 read with Section 17 of CGST Act
As per Consumer Protection Act losing a case on merit could not be termed as deficiency in service by the advocate: Supreme Court Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Lohariya v. Jagdish Chand Purohit and Ors. [S.L.P. (C) Diary No. 24842 of 2020, decided on November 8, 2021] held that in each and every case where […]
CESTAT held that the service of providing professional/ vocational training courses and providing certificates to the students, on the basis of which the students are getting jobs or are trained to work as an entrepreneur / self-employed, falls under the exclusion clause of Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Kewal Krishan Vs Rajesh Kumar And Ors. Etc. (Supreme Court) Payment of price is an essential part of a sale, thus sale deed executed without payment of price is void: Supreme Court In Kewal Krishan v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. [Civil Appeal Nos. 6989-6992 of 2021 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2033-2036 of […]
CESTAT held that when road construction is exempt, every activity related to the road construction is exempt including consulting engineer services, thus, the assessee providing consulting engineer services in the matter of road construction is entitled to get exemption under Sl. No. 13(a) of the Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax dated June 20, 2012
It was observed, that the interest paid on the loans was allowed by the AO himself as a deduction, however, no loss in connection thereto was allowed. The action of the AO accepting the Foreign Exchange but disallowing the loss appears to be erroneous.
Department contended that the Petitioner is a manufacturer of fish meal which is also used as a raw material for the purpose of making taxable goods namely, cattle/poultry/aquatic feed and does not fall under the ambit of Goods Exemption Notification.
