A issue being a debatable issue at the point of time when the assessee filed its return of income penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on that count cannot be sustained, mere fact that the addition has been made or confirmed does not per se lead to imposition of penalty
If a particular accounting system has been followed and accepted and there is no acceptable reason to differ with it, the doctrine of consistency would come into play; the method of accounting cannot be rejected.
Production loss depends on number of factors and in absence of any comparable to show that loss shown by the assessee is excessive, the contention of the assessee has to be accepted
In re Prajapati Developers (GST AAR Maharashtra) Issue- Whether the construction services provided under the project “Prajapati Magnum” qualifies for the reduced CGST Rate of 6% as provided in SI. No 3 – item (v)- sub item (da) vide Notification 01/1018- CT (Rate) dated 25.01.2018? Held by Authority For Advance Ruling Low cost houses up […]
This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) – 19, Kolkata dated 05.03.2014 and in the solitary ground raised therein, the revenue has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in cancelling the assessment made by the A.O. under section 143(3) / 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding the same to be invalid.
Whether free tickets given as Complimentary tickets by Kings XI Punjab for IPL Matches falls within the definition of supply under the CGST Act, 2017 and thus whether the Applicant is required to pay GST on such free tickets?; Whether the Applicant is eligible to claim Input Tax Credit (for short ITC) in respect of complimentary tickets?
It is to be understood that the appellants are not basically an agency involved with the testing and certification. In fact, it is abundantly clear that they are performing certain activities which make the truck tanks fit to be filled with LPG for further transportation.
Question raised in the present writ petition is whether as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (C.E. Act, for short) the petitioner-assessee on filing of second appeal before the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) is required to make an additional pre-deposit of 10% of the duty and penalty in dispute, over and above 7.5% pre-deposit made for filing of first appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
The Ramco Cements Limited Vs CCT (CESTAT Hyderabad) It is not in dispute that the welding electrodes are used for repair and maintenance of capital goods within the factory of manufacturer and these capital goods are used for manufacture of the final product although the relationship is remote and not direct. So by no stretch of imagination can […]
The present appeal challenges the OIO No. 104/2011 dated 31.03.2011. The appellant is providing services of „General Insurance business. The dispute covers the period 2004-05 to 2007-08. During the disputed period, the appellants availed Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on repairs and maintenance of the vehicles by the „Authorized Service Stations‟ (ASS in short)
