In Embio Limited vs. Director General of Foreign Trade, the Supreme Court sets aside a penalty under Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade Act, ruling in favor of the appellant.
Court refused to entertain the PIL but granted the aggrieved parties liberty to raise the issue of interpreting Section 66 of the PMLA Act before the appropriate forum in proper proceedings. The Court emphasized that if such an issue is raised, it will be decided in accordance with the law, leaving the rights and contentions of all parties open.
Appeals filed against PCIT orders under section 12AB(4)(ii) of Income-tax Act, 1961. Learn why assessees contest rulings affecting registration status and application of law.
Explore the detailed analysis of ITAT Delhi’s ruling on the appeal filed by ACIT against Dish Infra Services Pvt. Ltd., covering unexplained cash credit, debenture issue expenditure, and interest disallowance.
ITAT observed discrepancies between appellant’s claimed sales and commission received, as per Form 26AS, subject to TDS deductions. Tribunal concluded that issue required examination by AO, considering reconciliations with Form 26AS, and remitted matter back to AO for fresh consideration.
Delhi High Court directs expeditious disposal of Hari Om Enterprises’ GST registration cancellation application alleging incorrect date. Read the judgment here.
Acknowledging the mutual desire of both parties for cancellation of registration, the court modified the order to cancel the registration with effect from 22.06.2022, the date of the Show Cause Notice. It directed the petitioner to comply with the provisions of Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Tribunal concluded that assessee was not real beneficiary of transaction but merely acted as a facilitator. Therefore, additions made under section 56 of Act were deemed arbitrary and were overturned.
Compelling imperative consequent upon contradictory reports cannot be ignored. For central excise authorities to assume antipodal positions is neither becoming nor legally proper
CESTAT held that Department could not solely rely on audit queries and objections to invoke extended period of limitation. It reiterated that appellant, being a Private Limited Company, had its Profit/Loss Account and Balance Sheet accessible as public documents, thus undermining any allegation of suppression.
