ITAT Chennai held that return of income has to be filed as per section 139 of the Income Tax Act for claiming benefit under section 10A. Exemption under section 10A is not available in case the return is filed belatedly.
Madras High Court directed the petitioner to file the pending GST returns thereafter the GST registration cancelled, on account of non-filing of GST return for continuous period of 6 months, will be restored
Madras High Court directed the petitioner to file the pending GST returns thereafter the GST registration cancelled, on account of non-filing of GST return for continuous period of 6 months, will be restored
Karnataka High Court directed restoration of GST registration as non-payment of GST and non-filing of GST return, on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause du;u accepted
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Medicament Supplies to Government Hospitals and Institutional Buyers shall be valued in terms of Section 4 and not Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Jharkhand High Court decided not to interfere on issue of leviability of tax on work of transportation of coal under GTA services leviable at 12% under Chapter Heading No. 9965 or 18% under Chapter Heading No. 9986 at the investigation stage.
Madras High Court held that Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Calcutta Club Limited concluded that sales tax is not payable on any sale of goods in the form of food, refreshments and drinks including liquors by the club to its permanent members. However, petitioner needs to demonstrate that their case comes within the ambit of said judgement.
Delhi High Court held that addition on the basis of single seized document is unsustainable as no fresh material was taken into account by the AO for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act.
Kerala High Court held that issuance of order cancelling GST registration without issuance of show cause notice in form REG-17 is unjustified. Matter remanded to complete the necessary proceedings.
Delhi High Court held that once the settlement commission concludes that there has been no true and fair disclosure of facts, the settlement commission cannot proceed to adjudicate the liability.
