Dinesh Sitaram Patil Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) We note that, while culminating the reassessment proceeding in the case of the assessee, the Ld. AO vide concluding para placed at page 4 of his order communicated the assessee his action of initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Act for ‘under reporting / mis-reporting’ of income […]
In re Pagaria Infotech Ventures LLP (CAAR Mumbai) M/s. Pagaria Infotech Ventures LLP (hereinafter referred to as ‘the applicant’, in short) filed an application for advance ruling before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai (CAAR, in short). The said application was received in the secretariat of the CAAR, Mumbai on 26.12.2022, along with its […]
Section 54F does not require one to one co-relation between capital gain arising out of transfer of long term capital asset and utilisation thereof for purchase /construction of residential house.
Technology Advisory Committee (TAC), MIIs are hereby directed to ensure the following requirements while establishing the testing framework of their IT systems/applications
Fact of suppression, etc., has not been established by the Revenue to justify invoking the extended period of limitation
S.K. Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT observed that Though ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed only one aspect of rejecting the claims i.e. time bar aspect. But it is observed that the orders of Original Authorities have been upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) resulting into merger of these orders. The perusal of Orders-in-Original is […]
Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs C.CGST & CEx- Gandhinagar (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant, Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC for short) is liable to pay service tax on the rent recovered towards renting of shops, godown, office etc. to the commission agents/ traders under the head […]
Jamals Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) The Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit, at the outset, that the appellant, being a developer, is engaged in the development of residential projects and the contracts entered into with its customers were in the nature of composite contract involving both service and transfer of property […]
From gift deed it is crystal clear that the said property was gifted by assesee to his sister out of natural love and affection and it was in this back drop that assessee claimed before CIT(A) that incidence of transfer of immovable property was not liable to tax in his hands.
Commission paid to the overseas agents is in respect of service provided by that agent to the appellant to export its goods and thereby sales is promoted and Appellants are entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 14/2004 and not liable to the payment of service tax under reverse charge.
