PCIT (Exemption) Vs Bishandayal Jewellers (Orissa High Court) Before the CIT(A), the Assessee claimed that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not given copies of the seized materials extracted from the hard disk and the pen drive. The CIT( A) called for a remand report from the AO. By the time, the remand report could be […]
Narayanan Subramaniam Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Controversy involved is primarily with regard to question if the assessee had non-residential status for the relevant Assessment Year 2017-18 and the ld AO had held it against the assessee on the basis that his stay for more than 180 days abroad was not supported by any evidence including […]
Refund claim of SAD is not time barred as no such limitation is prescribed under original notification no.102/2007-Customs. It was also held that period of limitation for first time cannot be introduced through subordinate legislation or notification.
Non-specification of limb of the notice would render section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings invalid. ITAT held that notice u/s 271(1)(c) is omnibus notice, thus defective which goes to the root of the matter. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
While processing of TDS statement, the late fee, if any shall be computed in accordance with provisions of Section 234E of the Act. As a corollary, prior to amendment under Section 200A of the Act, levy of fee under Section 234E during processing of TDS statement is not tenable.
Galaxy Bar and Restaurant Vs State of Odisha and others (Orissa High Court) Aggrieved by the non-grant of a licence for an IMFL Restaurant ON Shop under the name and style as ‘Galaxy Bar and Restaurant at Nayagarh’, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to process […]
Whether appellants liable to pay service tax on consideration received for construction services which are composite in nature including both supply of materials and provision of services for the period prior to 01.06.2007.
CESTAT held that when Tribunal given a specific direction to extend cum-duty benefit to appellant, Adjudicating Authority ought to have calculated demand after granting benefit.
CESTAT held that refund claim of SAD is not time barred as no such limitation is prescribed under original Notification No.102 of 2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007
Integral Coach Factory Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of railway coaches and are registered with the Central Excise Department. On specific intelligence that they were clearing railway coaches without payment of duty, the officers of the Preventive Unit […]
