ITAT Amritsar held that in case of non-cooperation during conduct of special audit under section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, the time limit to do the same can be extended at the end of the department.
CESTAT Mumbai held that services provided by appellant (Commission agent) to their foreign principals is ‘export of service’ as contemplated under rule 3 of the 2005 Export Rules.
Allahabad High Court held that once the registration is granted, the same could be cancelled only in terms of the conditions prescribed under Section 29(2) and allegedly being a bogus firm is not a ground enumerated under Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Delhi High Court held that rule 89(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 applies only in case of zero rated supply of goods or services, without payment of tax under bond or letter of undertaking. Accordingly, provisions are inapplicable to cases of refund of integrated tax paid on zero rated supply.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not leviable as mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Kerala High Court held that as the nature of the land of the petitioner has been permitted to be changed pursuant to passing of a statutory order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, the competent authority is bound to re-assess the rate of Basic Tax in respect of the land
Kerala High Court held that there cannot be an automatic demand for property tax without fixing the tax payable in accordance with the procedure provided in the Act and the Rules. Accordingly, demand of property tax without assessment of the property is untenable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that plausible approach adopted by AO cannot be labeled as erroneous. Hence, revisionary order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable in law.
Madras High Court set aside the orders calling upon the petitioner to remit arrears of property tax as no notice was issued prior to passing order of re-assessment under section 137B of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act.
ITAT Delhi held that Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) is statutorily the only evidence required to be eligible for the benefit under the DTAA. Accordingly, benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA duly available.
