At present, the refund process under GST Law is system-based, but the process requires involvement of the jurisdictional proper officer and his possible meeting with the taxpayers leading to possible harassment and other unwarranted situations.
Sunbright Cement Agencies Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) (CESTAT Mumbai) What is important to note is that even the initial period of three months provided for in sub-section (3) of section 85 of the Finance Act for presenting an appeal begins to run from the date of receipt of the order. The order was received […]
Trigo SAS Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) Assessee has merely transferred the right to use copyrighted software ANTIFOG and that it had not transferred the copyright itself to Trigo India. TRIGO India was authorized to have access to and make use of the copyrighted software ANTIFOG. In the Software License Agreement entered into, it is evident […]
Virmati Software And Telecommunications Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regards the demand of Rs. 47,43,442/- which represent service tax on difference between the telephone recharge amount received from customers and amount out of the same paid to telecom companies. In this fact, it appears that difference amount is […]
The PLI Scheme for the auto sector envisages to overcome the cost disabilities of the industry for manufacture of Advanced Automotive Technology products in India. The incentive structure will encourage industry to make fresh investments for indigenous global supply chain of Advanced Automotive Technology products.
ITO Vs P.H. Chandrashekar (ITAT Bangalore) Non-disposal of objections filed by the assessee before the completion of assessment is against the procedure prescribed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (P) Ltd (supra). Hence the same will vitiate the impugned assessment order. FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE The revenue […]
Case No. (AD-OI-21/2020) Anti-Dumping investigation concerning imports of Peroxosulphates (Persulphates) originating in or exported from China PR and USA.
Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) passed a final order against three beer companies, namely United Breweries Limited (‘UBL’), SABMiller India Limited (now renamed as Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd. after being acquired by Anheuser Busch InBev SA/NV) (‘AB InBev’) and Carlsberg India Private Limited (‘CIPL’) for indulging in cartelisation in the sale and supply of beer in various States and Union Territories in India, including through the platform of All India Brewers’ Association (‘AIBA’).
Evolving Systems Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The only other ground pressed was with regard to the action of the TPO in treating provision for bad and doubtful debts as part of non operating expense while computing operating margin of comparables. Karnataka High Court has also taken a view in the case […]
ACIT Vs Groz Engineering Tools Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Non-residents have rendered the services outside India and have been paid in foreign currency. Therefore, no income accrues or arises in India. These nonresidents do not have any PE or business connection in India which is not doubted by the AO. Further, the Assessing Officer has […]
