The appeal in the case of Simple Singh vs. ITO was directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2011-12
Agasthya Auto Products LLP filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal raised multiple grounds, challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
CESTAT Chennai acknowledged the procedural violation by the appellant but recognized that the goods underwent 100% examination, revealing no banned substances. Considering this and the appellant’s cost and delay in the clearance process, the CESTAT Chennai found the imposed redemption fine and penalties excessive. Therefore, the CESTAT Chennai reduced the redemption fine to INR 1,00,000 and the penalty to INR 50,000.
The Karnataka High Court instructs to defreeze the bank account of Guard India Secure Services Pvt Ltd after they provide security amidst a service tax dispute with the Union of India.
CESTAT Bangalore has upheld the decision to revoke the suspension of Bon Freight’s CHA license, due to lack of conclusive evidence pointing towards their involvement in irregularities.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad ordered a crucial conversion from DFRC to DEEC scheme in the case of Vinny Royal Plasticoates Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs. Dive in to understand the case details and implications.
CESTAT Chennai resolves an issue related to the imposition of service tax on bank charges deducted by foreign banks, setting a precedent that upholds the rights of exporters in India.
The ITAT Delhi has upheld the enhanced addition of Advertising & Marketing Expenses in the case of HPL Additives Ltd Vs DCIT, citing the failure to substantiate the business purpose of the expenses.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata has upheld the seizure of Betel Nuts and the imposition of penalties, dismissing the appeal by Sunil Kumar Yadav, who claimed ownership of the goods.
The CESTAT quashes penalty against SAB Industries Limited, ruling that service tax cannot be levied under ‘Works Contract Service’ once demanded under ‘Commercial Construction Service’.
