Sanjeev Mittal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) – CIT(A) can admit additional evidence after giving full opportunity to AO to rebut/offer comments in remand proceeding.
Appellant’s relationship with CIL was one of sale/purchase on a principal-to-principal basis. Therefore, appellant could not be held liable for service tax under BAS.
Service tax demand on services from abroad before 18.4.2006 isn’t sustainable. Issuing authority must specify applicable sub-clause in notice.
Karnataka High Court rules in favor of employers & employees, declaring para 83 of EPF Scheme & para 43A of Pension Scheme unconstitutional & arbitrary.
Delhi HC ruled that PCIT’s rejection of an application under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act lacked reasoning. Court remanded matter for fresh consideration.
Delhi High Court held that the documents which were seized during the course of search does was unsigned Agreement to sell (ATS) which does not contain name of assessee, the said material cannot be said to pertain/pertains to assessee.
Court observed that no notice was issued under Section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure before arrest. Analyzing complaint, court found prima facie evidence insufficient to establish Section 420 offences, warranting bail.
Court emphasized that if no input tax credit was available in the ledger, the rule did not permit insertion of a negative balance; instead, only blocking of the electronic credit ledger was permissible.
Read detailed analysis of Customs Authority of Advance Ruling (CAAR) Delhi’s classification ruling on Roasted Areca Nut (Whole, Split, Cut) imports. Understanding legal implications.
Learn how the Jharkhand High Court ruled on interest for late GST returns, why liability disputes matter, and the impact on East India Udyog Ltd.
