Mukul Islam Vs Assistant Commissioner of Revenue (Calcutta High Court) The Calcutta High Court recently delivered a judgment in the case of Mukul Islam versus Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, pertaining to a writ petition challenging the refusal to condone delay in maintaining an appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax […]
ITO Vs Avirook Sen (ITAT Delhi) The case of ITO Vs Avirook Sen (ITAT Delhi) revolves around the taxation of voluntary ex-gratia compensation paid by an employer to an employee after termination from service. The Revenue contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,13,08,444/- by the CIT(A). The crux of the dispute lies in […]
Read about Madras High Court ruling in Sri Krishna Textile Mills vs. Assistant Commissioner, highlighting rejection of refund on inverted turnover mismatch with GST returns.
Allahabad High Court sets aside order as petitioner wasn’t required to check GST portal for notices. Read the detailed analysis of Chemsilk Commerce Pvt Ltd Vs State of U.P. case.
Discover ITAT Kolkata ruling in Deep Jyoti Wax Traders Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO, highlighting the importance of assessee chosen valuation method under Rule 11UA(2).
Dive into the CESTAT Kolkata ruling on CENVAT credit dispute between Commissioner of Central Excise and Viraj Steel regarding steel items usage.
Get insights into the GST ruling on paper cup manufacturing, including correct HSN code, tax rate, and refund eligibility. Detailed analysis and conclusions provided.
Explore the GST ruling on input tax credit, tax rates, and classification for demo cars in the case of Landmark Cars East Private Limited. Understand the implications and nuances of reimbursement for losses on demo car sales.
Penna Cement Industries Ltd. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court) – GST recovery proceedings can be initiated only if amount is not paid within a period of 3 months from the date of service of order
Presence of mens rea is deemed essential for imposition of penalties related to tax evasion. Mere technical errors, without evidence of intent to evade taxes, do not warrant penalty imposition.
