The learned counsel for the respondents contented that, since the petitioner have dealt with fake invoices, the respondent authority have blocked the Input Tax Credit.
ITAT Kolkata held that the transaction cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act since the transaction of the shares were shown as stock in trade in assets side of the balance sheet and sale as revenue in profit & loss account.
Overlooking COO without following procedure set out in Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Member States of ASEAN and the Republic of India) Rules, 2009 is untenable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Lemoneez, being juice of single citrus pulp, is rightly classifiable under Tariff Item No. i.e. CTH 2009 31 00 instead of CTH 2106 as alleged by department. Hence, differential duty demand is set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that expense of air travel of service provider who provided Management Consultancy Service is not includible in value for discharge service tax under reverse charge mechanism [RCM]. Accordingly, appeal allowed and demand set aside.
Madras High Court held that claim of Input Tax Credit [ITC] barred by limitation in terms of section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST Act] but within period prescribed u/s. 16(5) is duly allowable.
CESTAT Mumbai sets aside penalty and license revocation for SYNC Logistics, finding customs failed to prove breach of record rules under CBLR 2018 Reg 10(k).
Calcutta High Court held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards bogus share capital and share premium duly deleted by CIT(A) since identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers alongwith genuineness of transactions duly proved.
Delhi ITAT dismisses Revenue’s appeal as tax effect is below Rs 60 lakh monetary limit per CBDT circulars. Assessee’s cross objections withdrawn.
CESTAT held that submission of TR-6 challans proved the appellant bore the burden of Customs duty including SAD. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the refund rejection and directed the authority to refund SAD of Rs. 2,87,801/-.
