Servocraft HR Solutions Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai held that Show Cause Notice ought not to be issued when the assessee has paid Service Tax along with interest on being pointed out. Accordingly, penalty imposed under section 77 and section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 […]
Sh. Yasir Bilal Khan Vs DCIT (ITAT Amritsar) ITAT Amritsar held that penalty u/s 271B for non-furnishing of audit report within specified date leviable as assessee failed to prove nexus between non-completion of the audit report u/s. 44AB with the flood of Kashmir. Facts- The penalty was levied by the ld. AO u/s. 271B of […]
ITAT Bangalore held that income from sale of developed flat, obtained under Joint Development Agreement (JDA), is to be treated as income from short term capital gain/ long term capital gain and not as income from business.
Bombay High Court deferred the hearing in the matter of levy of VAT or GST on Extra Neutral Alcohol as matter already pending before Supreme Court.
ITAT Amritsar held that provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act cannot be made applicable where assessee has made a statement that the excess stock was a result of suppression of profit in respect of sales made outside the books of accounts.
Supreme Court held that as there is no final assessment in fake invoice case made under GST Act, the appellant cannot be said to be under a legal liability. Accordingly, condition of pre-deposit for grant of anticipatory bail not imposable.
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation not invocable as there is no suppression of facts with the intend to evade payment of tax. Accordingly, order dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
Orissa High Court held that petitioner-dealer has right to cross-examine the selling dealers, however, as more than two decades elapsed it might not be practical. Accordingly, assessment would stand completed at the figures disclosed in the return of petitioner-dealer.
ITAT Pune held that as NFAC dismissed the claim of deduction u/s 80P on legal issue without considering the case on merits, matter remanded back for fresh adjudication.
Calcutta High Court held that invocation of provisions of rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules by AO without examining the accounts of the assessee and without examining the claim made by the assessee is unjustified.
