Exemption notification should not be liberally construed and it was for the assessee to show that he came within the purview of the notification as on and after 01.07.2012, such activity by the Market Committees was put in the Negative List, it could safely be said that under the 2006 circular, the Market Committees were not exempted from payment of service tax on such activities.
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Foodworld (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: Asessee was entitled to Service Tax Refund under errorneous advice of of service involved in sale of food to passengers subject to passing unjust enrichment test. Held: Assessee was having STC No.AAAFF497EST001 and was mainly engaged in the business of sale of food on board the […]
NCLT Order accepting IBA Application for want of Jurisdiction post-amendment to Section 4 was quashed in the light of amendment to section 4 wherein Part II of the IBC could apply only to matters relating to insolvency and liquidation of corporate debtors, where the minimum amount of default was Rs.1 Crore.
Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs Rahul Modi (Supreme Court of India) Conclusion: The indefeasible right of an accused to seek statutory bail under Section 167(2), CrPC arose only if the charge-sheet had not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period. Held: In the instant case, investigation was directed to be conducted into the […]
Where the legality and validity of the agreement was under challenge, there was no infirmity into the order of CIT(A) to the extent it was held that the transfer of shares could not be subjected to capital gain tax in the year under consideration on the ground that the entire transaction had not fructified.
Interest was not leviable by Commissioner under Cenvat Credit rules as Commissioner, on his own, examined as to whether assessee was eligible to avail and utilize CENVAT credit under rule 11 or rule 3(2) of the 2004 Credit Rules however, assessee had not made any such claim for availing the credit. It was, therefore, not possible to uphold the order passed by Commissioner.
Since Indian subsidiary of assessee-company was operating in an independent manner and there was nothing to show that factually speaking the Indian subsidiary constituted a PE of assessee in India, therefore, AO had erred in invoking section 9 of the Act and/or Article 5 of the India-USA DTAA in order to say that the assessee company had a PE in India. Where assessee did not have a PE in India, income of assessee was not allowable to be taxed in India.
Reassessment notice was quashed with liberty to AO concerned to initiate fresh re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021 and after making compliance of the formalities as required by the law.
CESTAT ignored the fact that High-Speed Diesel imported under the guise of Base Oil SN 50 was being diverted as fuel by routing such goods through the purported manufacturers who claim to manufacture Bio-Diesel B100. Thus, department had es
High Court set aside the retrospective amendment in Industrial Policy Resolution denying GST reimbursement as the Court was not satisfied of the reasons given by the Opposite Parties for discriminating against assessee unit vis-à-vis KPCW which appeared to be identically placed as assessee and nowhere does IPR 2007 state that a cement producing unit that sources raw materials from outside would be ineligible to receive the incentives.
