Read case of Monarch & Qureshi Builders challenging an ITAT Mumbai order, highlighting jurisdictional issues in Section 143(2) notice for quashing assessment.
Read the full text of CESTAT Kolkata’s order on the Commissioner of Customs vs. Sawetri Trading Company case. Analysis reveals key factors influencing customs duty demand on Poppy Seeds.
Delhi High Court ruling on PCIT vs Trojan Developers Pvt. Ltd. AO’s enquiry on high premium shares and HC’s critique of Section 263 exercise. Full text of judgment.
Delhi High Court quashes the cancellation of GST registration for Radhey Trading Company, citing insufficient details in the show cause notice and retrospective cancellation order.
Read ITAT decision on the eligibility of a cooperative society for a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The case, Keyyur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs ITO, addresses interest income on investments in a cooperative bank without a banking license.
HC court upheld factual findings of lower authorities, emphasizing its limited jurisdiction under Section 260A of Income Tax Act. It clarified that it cannot reevaluate questions of fact in the absence of any grounds alleging perversity in the findings.
ITAT Chennai’s in Ethiraj Hotel Mart Vs DCIT held that as assessee declared excess stock as business income and provided a plausible explanation for its source, it should be taxed as ‘normal business income’ and not as ‘unexplained investment’ under section 69B.
Explore the Jyoti Sarup Mittal vs Commissioner of Central Tax case. Learn how works contracts, VAT prerequisites, and governmental exemptions impact service tax.
CESTAT Delhi in Sharma Steel Rolling Mills vs Commissioner held that No Penalty for Unrecorded Finished Goods in Factory without Evidence of Clandestine Removal and personal penalty on employee need not be imposed as he is acting under direction of his employer
The Court observed that Section 75(4) explicitly requires an opportunity of hearing when an adverse decision is anticipated. Considering that both tax and penalties were imposed, and an adverse decision was contemplated, the Court held that the department was obligated to provide a hearing.
