The Hon’ble Madras HC in the case of PK Shefi vs. CESTAT held that the tribunal is not right to order pre-deposit prejudicial to the interest of the assessee when the issue was debatable and the assessee has reasonably shown the likely financial hardship to be suffered.
Whether the receipt of Letter of Credit Margin/Trade margin by the petitioner in convertible foreign exchange for rendering service to various overseas buyers are liable to service tax under the category of “Business Auxiliary Services” as per Section 65(19) of the Finance Act.
The only issue before Hon’ble court is that whether assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80 IA even though it have been set off losses against the profits from other sources. CIT VS. GR Thangamaligai Firm (Madras High Court)
In the case of M/s.Thirumurugan Enterprises Vs The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that remanding back the case by Tribunal, without going into merits and asking the adjudicating authority to re-adjudicate the matter will not suffice.
In the case of M/s.Novel Digital Electronics Vs The Commissioner Customs (Imports), it was held by Madras High Court that penalty will ordinarily be imposed in cases where the party acts deliberately in defiance of law, or is guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct
In this case Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring that Notification No.25/2012 dated 20.06.2012 (Entry 16) in so far as it provides for an exemption in respect of services provided by a performing artist in folk or classical art forms of music
Madhu Dadha Vs. ACIT (2009) 317 ITR 458 (Mad)- In the present case, the appeal has been filed after a delay of 558 days. From the contents of the affidavit and submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee, it is clear that the assessee has not explained the delay for such a long
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty is leviable under section 271D when there has been repeated violations of section 269SS on the ground that the creditors are genuine persons and there was no revenue loss to the Exchequer
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras after observing that there was no audit initiated/ conducted against the Petitioner or in business premises of the Petitioner, held that: Audit of service recipient, SIPL is not relevant and the Petitioner was never put to notice before March 1, 2013;
Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the date of presentation of cheque in the bank is to be reckoned as the date of payment of advance tax and not the date on which the cheque is cleared and entered in the receipt roll as required under Rule 20 of the Central Government Account (Receipts and Payments) Rules 1983
