ITAT Mumbai held that GST/service tax which is collected by the assessee from its customers and paid to the Government do not form part of the receipts for computation of income as per section 44BB of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that interest on refund not eligible if the assessment is finalized within three months as prescribed under Section 18(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
The assessee is a private limited company and is engaged in the business of providing aviation services by operating and maintaining aircrafts at various locations and having base at Bengaluru. The return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny.
The Petitioner has paid the differential duty under the protest. Thus, vide the present petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned Press Release dated 15.07.2020 and the impugned show cause notice cum demand notice dated 17.04.2023.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that Rule 2BBB of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was introduced only from AY 2015-16 and the same is not applicable for AY 2014-15. Thus denial of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act unjustified.
ITAT Hyderabad condoned delay of nearly a decade in filing of an appeal since tax liability was fastened on the assessee without an authority of law and it is a well settled principle of law that unless authority of law, no tax can be collected.
CESTAT Chennai held that denial of refund claim related to cenvat credit of service tax under RCM by invoking provisions of Section 142(8) of the CGST Act is cannot be justified. Accordingly, order rejected refund claim set aside.
By an Order dated 20th October, 2023, Respondent No. 1 rejected the Petitioner’s Application for condonation of delay of 80 days in filing the Return of Income. It is this Order dated 20th October,2023 which has been impugned in the present Petition.
Gauhati High Court held that gravity of charge against CIT(A) has been diluted when the ITAT has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh. Thus, memorandum of charge issued against CIT(A) is liable to be interfered.
The application filed on 11th October, 2012 was not pressed and subsequently on 3rd July, 2013 another application was filed by the Respondents claiming compensation amount of USD 745580, maximum penalty of 50% and maximum interest of 12%.
