Analysis of CESTAT Kolkata’s decision in Mahavir Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs CGST & Central Excise, focusing on alleged clandestine removal and estimated production norms.
CESTAT Kolkata allows CENVAT Credit to Rexon Strips Ltd., ruling that inputs used in capital goods are eligible, setting aside prior denials by lower authorities.
Supreme Court held that State Government while applying amendment of Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2002 was not justified in taking away right accrued to assessee without revoking entitlement certificate.
DCIT Vs Triton Hotels and Resorts Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, adjudicated appeals in the case of DCIT Vs Triton Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. The matter primarily pertained to unexplained expenditures assessed under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year (AY) 2020-21. Cross-appeals were filed […]
ITAT Pune rules that an ITI substantially funded by the government qualifies for tax exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab), even if the primary income source is interest on government grants.
Bombay High Court held that serving signed copy of arbitral award to employee of the partnership firm is not proper service of signed award as required under section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Supreme Court disposes of ITO Vs DXN Herbal case due to low tax effect under Rs. 5 crores. Question of law remains open per Circular dated 17 Sept 2024.
ITAT Rajkot remanded the matter as lower authority has not exercised their power to enquiry in section 131 and 133(6) of the Act to verify the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the party in case of addition towards unsecured loan u/s. 68.
ITAT Bangalore upholds CIT(A)’s decision, stating that belated filing of Form 10 is a procedural lapse and doesn’t disqualify an institution from tax exemptions under Section 10(23C)(iiiac) and 11(2).
It is also noteworthy that the learned Departmental Representative (DR), during the hearing, did not point out any material differences between the facts of the present case and those of the earlier assessment years.
