Any statement recorded prior to the issuance of such show-cause notice is not a statement recorded in the course of an inquiry or proceeding and no right accrues in favour of a noticee to insist that he be offered for cross-examination the witnesses, whose statements have been recorded.
Where assessee availed the benefit of restriction of penalty to only 15% of tax and the seizure of cash was setting off against the outstanding balance amount of GST, interest and penalty, assessee had no right to challenge the concluded search proceedings.
Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy Vs V. Manjunath (Supreme Court of India) Right of the Karta to execute agreement to sell or sale deed of a joint Hindu family property is settled and is beyond cavil vide several judgments of this Court including Sri Narayan Bal and Others v. Sridhar Sutar and Others,2 wherein it has been […]
Service Tax demand was quashed as inclusion of turnover of Manufacturing unit for quantification of amount for reversal of CENVAT Credit was appropriate since for the entire remaining activities of the Puducherry manufacturing unit, the centralized service tax registration at Bangalore was applicable, which was as a SERVICE PROVIDER as well as an INPUT SERVICE DISTRIBUTOR.
Since no definite view could be taken that the notice was beyond the period of limitation in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 and it depend upon the factual examination and adjudication by the adjudicating authority, therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Central Tax Commissioner.
Service of granting of mining rights provided by the Government would not fall under the category of ‘support services’ and after 01.04.2016 the liability was always cast upon the service recipient
Anticipatory bail was granted to a person accused of fraudulently availing and passing on fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs. 72 Crores with some stringent conditions in view of the prior conduct of assessee.
Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (Karnataka High Court) No cenvat credit on outdoor catering service availed by assessee-employer for providing food and beverages in factory canteen Conclusion: Services received by assessee in the capacity of employer for providing food and beverages in the canteen maintained and run in the factory […]
Since AO had taken recourse to the provisions of section 142(2A) only with a view to extend the period of limitation by virtue of clause (iv) of Explanation 1 to section 153(9) for completion of assessment, without the conditions being satisfied in section 142(2A), therefore, the assessment framed by AO under section 143(3) was barred by limitation and invalid.
Addition on account of investment made from undisclosed sources was deleted as as all transactions were made through banking channels and AO had made the addition in question on assumption and presumption basis.
