The Karnataka High Court upheld revision proceedings in the PCIT v. TE Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd. case, ruling that the absence of a detailed order on commission payments/discounts in the original assessment rendered it erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The court emphasized the need for explicit findings.
Assessee had joined the Central Excise Department in 1978 based on a Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate stating he belonged to the Katunayakkan community, which was recognized under Article 342 of the Constitution
Understand GST on renting immovable property in India, including Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM), exemptions for residential use, and Input Tax Credit (ITC) applicability.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded a case involving Shree Bhandari Gnyati Mandal, challenging the denial of 80G registration. The ITAT directs re-verification of the trust’s expenditure on religious activities.
The Delhi High Court has ruled a GST demand order against a deceased proprietor invalid, mandating show cause notices be issued to legal representatives for tax determination.
The Delhi High Court has upheld an ex-parte GST demand order against Parshuram Yadav, noting the assessee’s failure to respond to a show cause notice and subsequent reminders. The court advised appeal as the appropriate remedy.
Appellant was notified by mail that the respondent had deposited Rs. 20 lakhs into the appellant’s account while the tribunal’s proceedings were still pending. Appellant argued that Rs. 20 lakh had been deposited without its consent and that it would be willing to reimburse the money.
ITAT Hyderabad remands Ujwal Foundation’s appeals for 80G approval and 12AB registration, citing Supreme Court precedent on considering proposed charitable activities.
CESTAT rules exporters are not liable for service tax on foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds, citing previous judicial precedents.
The Madras High Court has remanded a GST case involving Tvl.Manikandan-SKR Agency, despite the appeal being time-barred, due to an ex-parte assessment order and the petitioner’s offer of a 25% pre-deposit.
