ITAT Jaipur held that delayed payment of employee contribution to PF/ESI as prescribed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act is beyond the ambit of adjustments to be carried out u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.
In re Pushkar RJ Singh – Raj Agro AIDS (GST AAR Punjab) a) The activity of building and fabricating of Tipper Body and mounting the same by the applicant and collecting fabrication charges including inputs required for such fabrication work, if the chassis is owned and supplied by the customer, will result in supply of […]
As per provisions of Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act read with PGST Act, the purchaser is not entitled to claim Input Tax Credit on the purchases made by it from the seller who had discharged its tax liability but the preceding seller has not discharged its liability under the Act
CESTAT Chennai held that demand of interest under section 61(2)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 unsustainable as SCN is time barred.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that duty demand in a case of clandestine clearance cannot be sustained if there is no conclusive evidence of physical movement or diversion. The demand based on assumptions and presumptions is unsustainable.
Madras High Court held that as writ is filed, in the matter of differential duty in respect of portable emergency lamp, after a lapse of almost sixteen years, the same needs reconsideration on merits and in accordance with law.
Guwahati High Court held that any member of a Scheduled Tribe as defined in Clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution, residing in any of the areas prescribed u/s. 10(26), is exempted from payment of income tax. However, residing in any area specified cannot be given a narrow and restricted meaning.
CESAT Chandigarh held that interest u/s 27(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 is available after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of refund application till the date on which the refund has actually been paid.
ITAT Hyderabad held that it is mandatory for CIT(A) to grant responsible opportunity to the Assessing Officer in case additional evidence is admitted. However, in the present case, the documents based on which relief is granted was already available with the department and hence there is no violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.
Gujarat High Court held that impugned order cancelling the registration traveling beyond the scope of show cause notice is untenable in law.
