Allahabad High Court quashes GST orders against Raksha Enterprises for violation of Section 75(7) and Section 75(6) of GST Act, remands case for rehearing.
ITAT Delhi dismisses Revenue’s appeal against Tata Teleservices on taxability of interest paid to China Development Bank under India-China DTAA Article 11(3).
Delhi High Court held that repeated placing and removing from the call book is not valid justification for non-adjudication of show cause notice for more than 10 years. Accordingly, order passed after 10 years is not sustainable and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi rules on penalty imposition for Vodafone West Ltd, concerning a debatable issue of interest on license fees.
Anup Kumar Singh Vs Union of India & others (Calcutta High Court) Calcutta High Court held that issuance of provisional seizure order under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 [FEMA] is in complete disregard of the moratorium prescribed by section 33(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] since the provisions of the IBC would override the […]
Anil Kumar Singh Vs Union of India (Patna High Court) Patna High Court held that not obtaining registration under service tax alone cannot be reason to believe that there is existence of fraud or wilful suppression with intent to evade payment of service tax. Thus, extended period of limitation not applicable. Facts- The petitioner is […]
Patna High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of incorrect information which was not supported by any material is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, order passed thereon is liable to be quashed.
Gospel India Ministries Gutkula Vs CIT (ITAT Nagpur) ITAT Nagpur held that rejection of application in Form 10AB for grant of registration u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act on the ground of quoting of wrong provision not justifiable since quoting wrong provision cannot be held to be fatal to militate against well-deserved beneficial provision. […]
ITAT Ahmedabad restored matter of registration under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act to the file of CIT(E) for verification that expenditure on religious activities was within the threshold limit of 5% as specified under section 80G(5) of the Act.
Delhi High Court held that imposition of penalty justified since appellant holding IEC registration ought to have acted responsibly and ensured that the same was not misused by any third party. Thus, penalty imposed on the appellant justified since appellant was aware of IEC being misused.
