Petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of Duplex Board. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking to recover a sum of Rs.3,66,649/- which was paid by the petitioner to the Department as interest in excess of actual interest liability.
ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance of contribution of EPF/ESI of employees contribution justified since amount deposited beyond the due date of respective Acts. Notably, deduction is not allowance even if contribution is deposited before filing of return u/s. 139(1).
NCLAT Delhi held that provisions of section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would not apply as the date of default occurred much prior to 25.03.2020. Accordingly, held that application filed under section 7 duly accepted.
ITAT Hyderabad held that condonation of delay of 10 years in filing of an appeal allowed since tax cannot be collected without authority of law and rejection of appeal on technical ground of delayed filing would be contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution.
During the impugned year, noting the fact that the assessee had deposited cash during demonetization period from 8th November 2016 to 30th December 2016 of Rs.4,12,67,000/-, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS).
CESTAT Allahabad held that claim of cash refund of service tax paid under RCM not admissible since CENVAT Credit was never claimed and transitional provisions under GST was not complied.
Delhi High Court held that decisions causing hardship to an employee cannot be termed as an action which would amount to incitement/abetment in terms of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thus, summoning order set aside.
CESTAT Allahabad held that penalty imposable for the act of smuggling of battery scrap by concealing the same with plastic scrap through un-notified route from Nepal. Accordingly, penalty upheld and appeal dismissed.
ITAT Bangalore held that interest received from amount of government grant which is remitted back to either central or state government and the benefit of the same is not received by the assessee is not to be added in the income of the assessee.
Delhi High Court held that passing of penalty order after the lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO is untenable. Thus, penalty order set aside as passed beyond time period framed u/s. 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
