An airline may pay commission inter alia on various items, apart from the basic fare, which are indicated clearly in the ticket issued to a traveller. The basic fare is clearly indicated, followed by various other charges in such ticket. Hence, in our view, when the basic fare is so specifically indicated, the authorities cannot add or delete anything to the same to say that the basic fare should also include those other things.
State Bank of India Vs C.C. E. & S.T.–Surat (CESTAT Ahmedabad) find that the services provided by the appellant are in relation to the disbursement of EPF and ESI. Notification No. 13/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 provides following exemption: “…. exempts taxable service provided by a banking company or a financial institution including a non-banking financial company, […]
The dispute in the present case is relating to the liability of the appellant under IPR service on Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM).
Progressive Metals Pvt. Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (Calcutta High Court) It is not in dispute that the vehicle along with the goods entered the Durgapur industrial belt within the validity of the e-way bill. The vehicle was intercepted on 9th May, 2022 at 9:35 AM at Durgapur and the vehicle was detained along with the […]
We may look sound and healthy, but health emergencies do not give prior notice. We are witnessing a rise both in health risks and medical inflation.
Notification No. 24/2023- Income-Tax Dated: 03rd May, 2023 under section 90(1) of Income tax Act, 1961 regarding Agreement and Protocol between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Republic of Chile for the Elimination of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion and Avoidance with respect to taxes on […]
Tax officers have been directed that communications to be made/documents to be sent by tax offices to taxpayers and other concerned persons namely search authorization (INS-01) and inspection notices in the course of any enquiry/investigation proceeding shall use RFN.
mens rea is an important ingredient for imposing penalty on the persons enumerated in Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Mere fact that foreign origin of goods does not ipso facto lead to inevitable conclusion that the same are of smuggled character
Tribunal has come to a conclusion that no explicit findings have been given by the other Adjudicating Authority to the effect that the present Appellant has abetted in contravening any provisions of Customs Act.
