Indian Additives Limited Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) The definition of “capital goods” after 01.04.2016 does not exclude ‘any equipment or appliance used in an office’. For this reason, I hold that the credit availed by the appellant on the said computer server after 01.04.2016 would be eligible. It has also […]
Once the mistake is brought to fore and is in knowledge of the authority, it is incumbent upon the authority, who is possessed with all the powers, to take a deep dive into the matter to ascertain the correct facts and understand the mistake as well as see how the effect of mistake was mitigated.
Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs Commissioner Of CGST & CE (CESTAT Mumbai) The only objection which has been raised is to the word ‘building’ used in the Notification No 25/2012-ST whereas appellant are claiming exemption in respect of shop and flats purchased by them from the M/s Yog Reality. In the impugned order […]
Maheshwari Texturisers Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the issue involved is of levy of NCCD in respect of Partially Oriented Yarn falling under Chapter 5402 consumed actively for the manufacture of Polyester Texturized Yarn. On the said issue, there are number of judgments as cited by the […]
Akums Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Uttarakhand High Court) Whether the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand in holding that the revisionist is not entitled to reduce the levy of Central Sales Tax @ 1% for the financial year 2010-11 onwards) after the Capital Investment of Plant and Machinery, having […]
M J Gold Pvt Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Delhi) Admittedly, the Customs Authority while verifying the origin of goods had issued a questionnaire and denied the benefit on the ground that the complete questionnaire was not answered by the appellant creating a doubt about the Country of origin Certificate. The perusal […]
DBS Bank India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rakesh Kumar Jain (NCLAT Delhi) The proviso in Regulation 12(3) of CIRP Regulations, 2016 clearly stipulates that if any decision is taken by the committee (CoC), prior to the reconstitution, which in this case is the ratification of the fees and the expenses, its validity will not be affected. […]
With a view to facilitate cash flow-based lending to MSMEs, it has been decided to include Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) as a Financial Information Provider (FIP) under the Account Aggregator (AA) framework. Department of Revenue shall be the regulator of GSTN for this specific purpose and Goods and Services Tax (GST) Returns, viz. Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B, shall be the Financial Information.
SC held that that on non-convertible debentures and fixed deposit of the value less than Rs.5,000/-, there shall not be any TDS leviable.
When additional evidence entertained by the CIT(A) has not been brought on record in accordance with Rule 46A subsequent findings on the same are vitiated because there is not even a whisper of remand report admittedly submitted in this case by the AO.
