Karnataka High Court held that petitioner failed to prove how notification no. DCOM(I&C)/AC/CR.22/10-11) dated 24.05.2010 is in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003 or the Constitution of India. Accordingly, notification no. DCOM(I&C)/AC/CR.22/10-11) dated 24.05.2010 issued by authorities to track movement of goods is valid.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under rule 26 of Central Excise Rules rightly imposed on the Chartered Accountant who issued false performance certificate to fraudulent parties based on which fraudulent advance license were obtained.
Delhi High Court directed the concerned officer to revisit the application preferred under section 197 of the Income Tax Act as the concerned officer simply by-passed the Supreme Court judgement in Engineering Analysis by observing that revenue has preferred a review petition. Such approach of officer is untenable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that cenvat credit is available in respect of iron and steel, cement, welding electrodes etc. used in manufacture of storage tank and pollution control system.
Karnataka High Court in the case of revocation of cancellation of the registration for non-filing of returns, allowed the petition and directed Superintendent of Central Tax to pass suitable order for revocation in case pending returns are furnished by petitioner within a period of four weeks.
Madras High Court, in the case of revocation of Input Tax Credit, directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority by way of statutory appeals within a period of three weeks
Madras High Court directed to deal with the matter of disallowance of ITC on account of mismatch between returns filed by the petitioners and returns filed by purchasing/ selling third party dealers as per Circular No. 5 of 2021 dated 24.02.2021
ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable on account of human error committed by the accountant as the same is not willful attempt to conceal income.
ITAT Delhi CIT(A) directed to accept the additional evidence and submission and pass the order after granting adequate personal hearing as there was reasonable cause of ailment that prevented assessee to supply documents and replies.
CESTAT Kolkata held that NIDB data cannot be relied upon when it is relating to different quantity and quality of goods. Further, enhancement of value based on LME prices untenable in view of unambiguous certificates from the manufacturers of the impugned goods.
