ITAT Chennai’s ruling in the case of Fathima Jewellers vs. DCIT clarifies that excess gold jewellery stock found during a survey isn’t unexplained investment under IT Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that mis-declaration allegations without complete evidence and violation of natural justice cannot be upheld.
DCIT vs. Krishan Kumar case: ITAT Delhi dismisses appeal by the Department regarding share transaction, ruling it doesn’t fall under the CBDT Circular exception.
Madras High Court’s ruling: Consumers can’t file complaints against the Revenue Department for excessive GST levied by hotel managements. Learn more here.
CESTAT Chandigarh rules in favor of Souvenior Ceramics, granting exemption from excise duty for castable refractory goods supplied to power projects. Detailed analysis here.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad addresses a case involving a refund dispute related to abatement and excise duty, emphasizing the need for clear evidence and transparency.
Explore the case of Shyam Sel And Power Limited vs. State of U.P. in Allahabad High Court. The verdict emphasizes the role of intent in invoking CGST Act provisions.
ITAT Delhi’s decision regarding applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) to companies before April 1, 2017 in case of Rhythm Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT.
Madras High Court rules on SEBI penalty case, stating that incorrect PAN doesn’t exempt payment of interest. Legal analysis of the case provided.
Read about the CESTAT Hyderabad decision in Shriram Life Insurance vs. Commissioner of Customs case. CESTAT quashes service tax demand, citing Section 73(3) of the Finance Act.
