Technova Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) Refusal of SAD to the Appellant-importer by the Refund Sanctioning Authority that has received concurrence of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the second round of litigation is assailed in this appeal. The gist of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is that goods imported and goods […]
Vekanteswara Electricals Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court) It is to be noted here that as per Section 38 (1)(a) of the APVAT Act, 2005, a refund is to be made within 90 days from the date of claim made by the dealer. As stated above, the claim was made nearly a […]
Umang Sitani Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) During the year, the assessee has received Rs.2.58 Cr. on account of compulsory acquisition of his land comprising an amount of Rs.79.17 lacs on account of compensation and Rs.178.92 lacs on account of interest on land compensation, the fact of which is not in dispute. The AO treated the […]
Shobha Plastics Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The Principal Commissioner of Customs Ahmedabad vide impugned order has imposed penalty under section 112 (a) of the Act upon the appellants Jayesh Mehta and Harshad Vadodaria on the ground that appellants herein have aided and abetted the importer in importing the goods by way […]
Assessee had purchased property in the name of married daughter, although she was divorced, but she was an independent for purpose of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, benefit of deduction under section 54 cannot be allowed, when property has been purchased in the name of married daughter
In re Teamlease Education Foundation (GST AAAR Karnataka) The limited issue for determination is whether the Appellant is acting as a ‘pure agent’ of the industry partner to the extent of reimbursement received towards stipend paid to trainees as part of the training agreement. In their appeal before AAAR, the Appellant has contended that the […]
The question ‘Whether ITC can be claimed on common services which arc utilized for both taxable as well as exempted supplies?’ is admissible for advance ruling as it falls within the scope of Section 97(2)(d) of the CGST Act.
AAAR held that activity of purchase or allotment of land and selling the said land after undertaking development activities of providing amenities such as Drainage line, water line, electricity line, land leveling, and common facilities viz. road and street light etc. is liable to GST.
In re BASF India Limited (CAAR Mumbai) CAAR held that the 3 products, i.e., Lucantin Red 10% NXT, Lucantin Yellow 10% NXT and Lucantin Pink are classifiable under heading 2309 and more specifically, under subheading 23099090 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF […]
The government has now decided that the negative balance in the cash ledgers of such taxpayers should be nullified. Accordingly, the negative balance has been nullified.
