Vodafone Mauritius Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Ms Fereshte D. Sethna, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the principal allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, which is a foreign company incorporated under the laws of Mauritius, had sold shares worth Rs.1295 crores, of an Indian company going by the […]
Kailash Kedia Vs ITO (Orissa High Court) Learned counsel for the Petitioners have also assailed both the notice under Section 148-A(1)(b) of the Act as well as the consequential order under Section 148-A(1)(d) on several grounds including the ground of limitation, not considering the objections filed, not providing a personal hearing, non-application of mind to […]
Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Mumbai) These appeals of M/s Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd, against order-in-original no. MUM/CGST/MW/COMMR/AK/42-43/2020-21 dated 26th February 2021 of Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West, arise from the unique deployment of constituents, that make up channel entities involved in exhibition of cinematographic films, in an arrangement by which […]
Messrs Dic Fine Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regard the issue that whether the refund claim can be rejected on the ground that the input services on which the refund claim was made by SEZ is not approved by the approval committee. As per the facts of the present case the refund […]
Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India (Patna High Court) Undisputedly, minimum statutory period of 30 days mandated under the provisions of Section 74(A) of CGST/BGST Act, 2017 was not afforded to the petitioner for making payment due and prior to the expiry of 30 days, the assessing officer proceeded to pass the order, […]
KPG Enterprise Vs C.C.E. Jamnagar (prev.) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue mainly involved is whether MEA S.O. 2158(E) dated 20.06.2016 prohibited the subject vessel imported for breaking purpose. The case of the department is that S.O. dated 20.06.2016 is issued in order to implement the UNSC resolutions and prohibited the subject vessel for entry into India […]
Crawley & Roy Founders Engineers Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In respect of addition made for delay in depositing of employees’ contribution to ESI, from the perusal of Form 3CD, we note that there is a typographical mistake in writing the year of deposit which has been mentioned as 2018 instead of 2017 as […]
Sanjay Subhashchand Gupta Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee contended that the impugned amounts were taken for the purpose of business activities of the company and the advance of Rs.14,44,730/- from M/s. Rustogi Logistic Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.3,35,38,660/- from M/s. Rustogi Projects Private Limited and the same was received as business advances. The ld. AR further […]
A perusal of the communication dated 21.11.2022 would show that the benefit of the concessional rate of customs duty available to the petitioner for importing equipment for the purpose of its solar power project, has been denied on account of a purported retrospective amendment to the Project Import Regulations, 1986
Reliance Mediaworks Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST (CESTAT Mumbai) The arrangement most commonly entered into between a theater owner and a distributor is that the theater owner screens the movie for fixed number of days under a contract. The proceeds earned through sale of tickets go to the distributor but the theatre owner receives a […]
