CESTAT held that penalty under Rule 15(1) on the present appellant, who is merely an employee of the Company, is not sustainable.
Deepak Shriniwas Mantri Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated 26-09-2022 passed by the CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in relation to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that […]
Acclaris Business Solutions Private Ltd Vs Commr. of CGST & CX, Kolkata North (CESTAT Kolkata) When the Appeal came up for hearing, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that they had filed a refund claim for Rs.9,79,412/- in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Adjudicating Authority […]
RK Gupta And Son HUF Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) HC held that notice dated 19.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shows, that a survey report was generated vis-à-vis Varun Capital Services Ltd. The said communication also alludes to the fact that assessee had entered into share transaction with Kisna […]
Namoshivai Apparels Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors (Delhi High Court) One of the questions that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the respondent can continue blocking the Input Tax Credit beyond the period of one year by unblocking if after the expiry of one year and immediately blocking it thereafter. […]
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Sanjay Sharma (Madhya Pradesh HC) HC held that for cancelling the bail once granted the Court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or at the stage of post-grant of bail the conduct of accused demonstrate that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him […]
Commission received from the financial institution towards sale of their loan product is liable to Service Tax
Casual approach of Commissioner State Taxes cannot be permitted since he is trying only to prevent payment of refund amount to petitioner.
Appellant is eligible for refund even though condition 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 not been complied
Government of India takes action against Ramudraurban Bachat Nidhi Limited for violating Section 92 of Companies Act, 2013. Detailed analysis and implications in this article.
