The Supreme Court declined to interfere with a High Court ruling that TCS under Section 206C(1C) does not apply to compounding fines collected from illegal miners. The Court confirmed that the provision applies only where mining rights are legally transferred.
The Tribunal held that failure to electronically file Form 10 as required under Section 11(2) can lead to denial of income accumulation benefits. The case was remanded to allow the assessee to seek condonation under CBDT guidelines.
Tribunal held that airline promotional packages including airfare, accommodation, and transfers do not qualify as tour operator service because airline did not plan or organize tours. Service Tax demand raised under this category was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that exemption notifications for Education Cess and SHEC apply only to Clean Energy Cess and not to CVD on imported coal. The case was remanded only to verify whether any cess was wrongly levied on CEC.
The tribunal held that TDS paid by the service recipient over and above the contract value cannot be included in the taxable value for service tax. Only the amount charged in the invoice forms the basis for service tax liability.
ITAT Mumbai held that long-term capital gains from share sales cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit when the assessee provides contract notes, demat records, and bank statements proving the transactions.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s non-appearance before the appellate authority was linked to serious ailments. It directed filing of an appeal before the Tribunal within six weeks.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court order concerning reassessment notices. It held that no ground existed under Article 136 to intervene, leaving the assessee to pursue remedies before the Assessing Officer.
The court declined to interfere with notices issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 because the petition was filed after more than one and a half years. It held that the assessee should appear before the Assessing Officer and present its submissions.
The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a GST demand, noting that the statutory appellate remedy was still available. The Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal subject to a 10% pre-deposit.
