Since there was absolutely no material that Revenue had failed in strictly adhering the limitation period under Regulation 20(7) of CBLR, 2013 and it was not the Revenue, who kept the file, without passing the final order under Regulation 20(7) within the 90 days limitation period and it had been kept pending only at the instance of the Respondent/Licensee, therefore, the matter was remitted back to CESTAT for fresh consideration only on the merits of the issue, not on the ground or point on limitation under Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013.
PCIT Vs Orchid Pharma Ltd. (Madras High Court) Employee’s contribution should be paid within the due date as provided in the related statutes to be allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Merchem Ltd. [reported in (2015) 378 ITR […]
Myres Tyre Supply (India) Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) In addition to writ with High Court appellant had also moved an application for refund of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed under the TNVAT Act and this application was without prejudice to their rights under section 140(3) of the TNGST Act. The […]
The issue under consideration is that, when two views are possible and A.O. adopt one of the view and passed his order accordingly. But that view is not acceptable by PCIT, in such case can PCIT adopt its one of the other views and call the order of A.O. the erroneous?
The petitioner, engaged in the export of leather shoes, had filed a shipping bill claiming duty drawback. The export transaction, the petitioner states, was also entitled for benefit under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) notified under the Foreign Trade Policy.
Fees for late filing of income tax returns under section 234F was a fixed charge not a penalty for the extra service which the Department had to provide due to the late filing of the Income Tax return.
CIT Vs Shri R. Rajinikanth (Madras High Court) In this case When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned Junior Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be […]
Assistant commissioner of CGST and Central excise Vs. M/s Sutherland global services (Madras High Court) Madras High Court Division Bench stays order of single judge in Matter relating to transition of education cess, secondary and higher education cess and krishi Kalyan cess into the Gst regime. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT Mr.Raghavan […]
Rajah Sir Annamalai Vs CCIT (Madras High Court) The fact that Clause 10 of the Trust Deed states that the fees and charges shall be fixed taking into account the cost of running including future development thereof though without an element of profit motive indicates that the actual intention of the trust is only to […]
Suresh Anuradha Vs CIT (Madras High Court) In the given case, the second respondent has demanded the petitioner to pay a sum equivalent to 20% of levied tax on or before 17.01.2020 for entertaining the appeal and stay petition under Section 220(6) of Income Tax Act 1961. Earlier, an assessment order was passed on 11.12.2009 […]
