Gauhati High Court held that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 is not a substitute to the Show Cause Notice to be issued in terms with Section 73 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [CGST Act].
Karnataka High Court held that TDS is not deductible on payment to non-residents for advertisements in several social medias like Facebook, Amazon Web Services and Rocket Science Group. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed.
Karnataka High Court held that accused convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to grant final opportunity to cross-examine complainant on deposit of 50% of the fine amount before trial court.
ITAT Lucknow held that cash deposits out of the past savings during demonetization being reasonable and as per social standing of the assessee is justifiable. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed and addition is directed to be deleted.
ITAT Bangalore held that delay in cash deposits, during demonetization, due to unforeseen circumstances like laxmi pooja and staff vacations post deepavali doesn’t imply fabricated income or an afterthought explanation. Hence, addition liable to be deleted.
ITAT Kolkata held that mere non-production of director cannot be the ground for making any addition in the hands of assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
Supreme Court held that activity of lottery distributor doesn’t constitute a service and hence imposition of service tax on distributor of lottery tickets not justifiable. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Disha Realcon and SM Niryat had exported iron ore fines whose Fe content was below 58% under some Shipping Bills and iron ore fines whose Fe content was above 58% under some other Shipping Bills.
NCLAT Delhi held that by approval of the Resolution Plan, all dues and claims of pre-CIRP stand extinguished. Thus, appellant is not entitled for recovering any dues from respondent which relate to pre-CIRP period.
Delhi High Court held that Freight Logistic Support Service provided by appellant are not in the nature of Fee for Technical Services/ Fee for Included Services u/s. 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act and accordingly appeal fails.
