Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the cenvat credit was denied to appellant on the ground that service being classifiable under Sponsorship Service, the appellant was supposed to discharge the service tax under GR-7 Challan. We find that the service provider M/s. K.P.H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. has […]
Gajraj Vahan Private Limited Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) As per the amended Rule 89 (1A) of CGST Rules, 2017 and Circular dated 25.09.2021, the limitation period for seeking refund would be two years from the date of the instant notification i.e. 24.09.2021. However, in the face of rejection order, petitioner cannot make […]
Devinder Gupta & Sons (HUF) Vs CIT (ITAT Delhi) It is an admitted position that the assessee had taken loan from the lender in the earlier years, a part of which has been repaid during the year albeit in cash. The amount of loan has been consequently reduced. A confirmation whereof from the lender has […]
Parthiv V Dave Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the exporter has made a serious offence by mis-declaring the quantity i.e. against 30,000 pairs declared in the export document only physical quantity found 405 pairs. Moreover, the value was also shown exorbitantly high. I find that though the appellant has acted as CHA and […]
Unideep Food Vs T.K. Satapathy (Orissa high court) Orissa High Court held that assessee failed to produce any fresh affidavits proving that it had borrowed unsecured loans from lender farmers as directed by ITAT while remanding the matter. Accordingly, addition under section 68 sustained. Facts- This appeal by the Assessee is directed against an order […]
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee going through resolution process has failed to comply with various notices issued by lower authorities. Accordingly, it is directed to give one last opportunity to present their case before AO. Assessee is also directed to pay the cost for being delinquent before lower authorities.
ITAT Pune held that interest granted by the reference Court u/s. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of possession of land till the date of judgment of High Court is an accretion of the value of the land acquired and accordingly not taxable.
ITAT Chandigarh held that as additional evidence submitted are essential and critical for determination of issue under consideration, matter remanded back to ld. CIT(A).
Madras High Court held that as per provisions of section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, when there is no enhancement of assessment or penalty, there is no necessity for the respondent to adhere to the principles of natural justice.
ITAT Delhi held that in absence of any reasonable cause for taking cash loan (i.e. contravening provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act), penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act duly leviable.
