Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Vs Jindal Steel and Power Ltd (Orissa High Court) It appears that the opposite party exported final products on payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 69,98,64,638/- during the period 01.01.2017 to 03.2017, and claimed rebate, vide application dated 14.08.2017, under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, […]
Petitioner admittedly made an application seeking for exit from EOU/STPI scheme and it was its specific case that it had not imported any capital goods or procured any capital goods in respect of project.
Sahil Infra Creative Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) The position which unfolds in this case is that the petitioner assesse had filed its objections to the notice for reassessment under section 148 unamended issued to him, however, the Assessing Officer never attended to the objections dated 12.10.2022 and left it undecided. Thereafter, the […]
Chennai Port Authority Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner’s request for personal hearing through video conferencing was not considered and the same was mechanically rejected and the impugned orders were passed, which is clear violation of principles of natural justice. In similar circumstances, this […]
Mangal Credit and Fincorp Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the instant case, the assessee has received money on issuing share capital in the form of exercise of rights in share warrants. The share capital so collected by the assessee is not in the course of negotiations for transfer of capital asset. The shares so […]
assessee has filed the return of income belatedly for the year under consideration but there is no prohibition to adjust the brought forward losses against the income declared belatedly in the return of income under the provision of section 139(3) of the Act.
Visakhapatnam Service Tax Commissionerate has initiated separate action against the Respondent at their Visakhapatnam unit for non payment of appropriate service tax there.
Certificates issued by the Chartered Accountant and Chartered Engineer, go on to establish the fact of use of material in the work executed by the appellants. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the contract was not simplicitior but was a composite contract. Therefore, we find that the appellants are entitled for the abatement of 67% of the value as claimed by them.
Penalty was levied under section 271 B of the Act on the ground that tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act was not filed by the assessee before filing of return of income and no explanation was given.
HC held that even without any request for personal hearing by an assessee, officer must have to provide personal opportunity of hearing, if the order is contemplated to be adverse.
