Assessee was able to correlate the invoices with the undertakings and satisfied the substantial conditions set out in the Exemption Notifications. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked in absence of suppression or collusion with an intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, the order was set-aside by which the demand of service tax had been confirmed with interest and penalty.
Penalty proceedings under section 271D or 271E were independent proceedings and had nothing to do with assessment proceedings or its outcome. Therefore, CIT(A) was not justified in cancelling the orders imposing penalty on the ground that the assessment proceedings, during the course of which, penalty u/s.271D and 271E were initiated had been held to be invalid.
CESTAT quashed the demand for service tax on foreign remittance as assessee had paid the service tax on a higher value than proposed by the Department and also the demand had been dropped for the year 2010-2011, there was no reason why it should not be dropped for the year 2009-2010.
National Spot Exchange Limited Vs Anil Kohli (Supreme Court of India) Conclusion: NCLAT had rightly refused to condone the delay of 44 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the NCLT and rejected the claim of the appellant as the period of 15 days which maximum could have been condoned in view […]
Dr. Sajan Hedge Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Instead of quashing the entire reassessment proceedings, it was suffice if an opportunity was provided to assessee to submit additional objections, if any, based on the materials relied on by assessee to AO, within a stipulated period and on receipt of the same, AO should be […]
The FIR against the ex-director of IL&FS was quashed as when SFIO was probing the case, no other investigative agency was empowered to investigate into the affairs of IL & FS and its subsidiary companies for any offences under the Companies Act but the same did not allow a clean chit to assessee herein, as persons who was beyond a pale of doubt.
Since the Custom Broker was liable to verify genuineness of importer-exporter code, IEC number, identity of client to prevent facilitation of export prohibited goods, therefore, custom broker was liable for penalty in case of breach of KYC norms and mandatory obligations under Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013.
Penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) could not be imposed merely for the delay in filing Quarterly TDS Statement as the entire tax along with interest thereon had been deposited in to Govt. account and later, assessee filed quarterly TDS returns for all the quarters and Revenue had not suffered any loss because tax deducted was already deposited on time and there was mere technical or venial breach to provisions contained in Act for submitting return/statements of TDS.
Indian Geotechnical Services Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Deduction on payment of employees contribution towards PF/ESI made before the due date of filing Income Tax Return under section 139(1) was allowable as the amended provisions of section 43B as well as 36(1)(va) were not applicable for the assessment year under consideration. Held: Assessee raised the […]
An interest-free debt funding of an overseas company in the nature of a special purpose vehicle (SPV), with a corresponding obligation to use it for the purpose of acquisition of a target company abroad, could not be compared with a loan simpliciter, and be, subjected to an arm’s length price adjustment on account of notional interest on a loan by assessee company to its fully owned foreign subsidiary as balances reflected on account of exchange difference for notional conversions could not be treated as outstanding dues.
