ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable since there is no concealment of particulars of income by the assessee.
CESTAT Mumbai held that unless a Trade Mark/ Brand Name is registered in the name of the assessee, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption notification.
Delhi High Court concluded that Appellate Authority failed to consider the contention of the petitioner that there was no supply of service via-a-vis refund of GST. Accordingly, matter remanded to Appellate Authority.
Delhi High Court held that the respondent organizing trade fairs at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi is liable to pay entertainment tax. Accordingly, order passed by Financial Commissioner setting aside levy of entertainment tax held unsustainable.
Allahabad High Court held that argument regarding no intention to avoid payment of tax not whispered in the writ petition. Hence, held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the case without there being any pleading in support of his arguments.
CESTAT Kolkata held that 100% EOU unit clearing Spent Sulphuric Acid to fertilizer companies is entitled to take benefit of notification no. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006.
ITAT Chennai held that interest income received from investment in Erode District Central Co-operative Bank, which is governed by Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
Allahabad High Court held that for imposition of penalty under section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST Act] intention to evade payment of tax is a pre-requisite. No penalty u/s 129(3) as there was no intent on part of petitioner to evade tax.
Madras High Court held that the product Aluminium Foil Container is classifiable under 7615 with GST 12%. Accordingly, demand of GST claiming that product is classifiable under 7067 @18% tax is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Mumbai held that demand to be unsustainable as even though belatedly the appellant has availed option provided under rule 6 and reversed the relevant cenvat credit along with interest. Concluded that even post-clearance compliance of stipulations precluded denial of an entitlement available otherwise.
