K.Baskaran Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) Impugned order levies interest under Section 50 as well as penalty under Section 73(9) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, over and above, reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC). Admittedly, there was no proposal in the pre-assessment notice either for levy of interest or penalty. […]
When the tax is paid under reverse charge mechanism, appellant would be entitled to avail credit of same, which leads to a revenue neutral situation
Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs Akshoy Kumar Ghosh & Sons (Calcutta High Court) This intra-Court appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA 26090/2022. By the said order the learned Single Bench directed the Chief Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs to appoint another […]
Innasimuthu Package Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The issue in all these appeals being the same, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. In these appeals, the issue relates to applicability of exemption Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006.at Sl. No. 72 which deals with the […]
Dipal Narendrabhai Shah Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Bhavnagar (CESTAT Ahmedabad) These appeals are directed against the Order-In-Appeal whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed by the original authority under Rule 26 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The brief facts of the case are that all the appellants in the present appeals were allegedly involved […]
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.
