Madras High Court held that simultaneous initiation of proceedings, both by Central Authority and by the State Authority, under GST Act is impermissible under law as per the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, 2017.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalties under section 271(1)(b) and section 271F of the Income Tax Act are not leviable on reasonable cause demonstrated by the assessee.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as all the particulars duly furnished by the assessee relating to source of investment, mere rejection of the claim of the assessee cannot invite levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty deleted.
CESTAT Delhi held that services of advertisement in print-media is exempt in terms of negative list of services under section 66D(g) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, service tax not leviable on the services of advertisement in print-media.
Calcutta High Court held that penalty under section 129(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 imposable on failure to generate a fresh e-way bill when goods are transferred from one vehicle to another during conveyance.
ITAT Chennai held that both the conditions u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act needs to be satisfied for initiation of re-assessment after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Here, as assessee has disclosed fully and truly all the material facts, re-assessment proceedings couldn’t be sustained.
Orissa High Court held that in event petitioners obtain conversion, there will be better chance of recovery by revenue on proceeding with the attachment of land that would then be owned by the estate. However, upon the permission granted under clause (ii) of the proviso in section 281, State will be bound to cause the conversion
ITAT Jaipur held that once penal provisions under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act are applied in case of search addition, invoking provision of section 115BBE is not in accordance with law and accordingly unsustainable.
PCIT Vs Urmila RCP Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Jharkhand High Court) Jharkhand High Court dismissed the tax appeal filed by the revenue on the question of maintainability as the tax effect involved in the matter is much below the monetary limit as enumerated in Circular No. 3/2018, Dated: 11/07/2018 read with Circular No. 17 of 2019. […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that difference is value declared on import of non-calcined petroleum coke by the appellant i.e. Rs. 2871.15 as against the comparable imports price i.e. Rs. 3701.20 justified based on the nature of supplies and long-term contract of appellant with supplier.
