Allahabad High Court’s ruling supported notion that absence of a specified date, time, or venue for personal hearing in notice renders order unsustainable.
Customs Authority ruled that the projectors under consideration, based on their functions and features, were principally meant for use with automatic data processing machines. The presence of additional features did not disqualify them from classification under sub-heading 8528 62 00, emphasizing the specific description provided by the heading.
After a comprehensive review of Mahindra & Mahindra’s submissions, relevant case laws, and legal framework, CAAR concludes that both TPMS and DPS merit classification under subheading 90262000 of Customs Tariff Act.
In the case of Raj Auto Wheels (P) Ltd vs ACIT, ITAT Jaipur meticulously analyzed additions based on customer advances and sales deferment, emphasizing legal principles and fair assessment. Tribunal’s rulings underscore the importance of genuine transactions and consistent legal application in tax assessments.
The issue involved the contention that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should not be made if the payee has already paid taxes. Noteworthy payees included public limited companies such as Maruti Udhyog Ltd., and Non-Banking Finance Corporations like Sundaram Finance, AU Finance, and Mahindra & Mahindra Finance.
Rajeshwar Prasad Choudhari challenges service tax demand based on Form 26AS data. CESTAT Kolkata sets aside order due to lack of evidence. Detailed analysis and key legal precedents.
R. Soundararajan & Co. challenges GST order in Madras High Court. Notice sent to wrong email, violating natural justice. Detailed analysis of the case and court’s directive.
Ventair Engineers gets clarity from GST AAR Telangana on tax rates for industrial equipment leasing. Detailed analysis of HSN codes and applicable rates.
The first question posed to the AAR was whether RFCL can be classified as a notified person under Section 51 of the CGST Act, read with Notification No. 33/2017 dated 15th September 2017. The AAR ruled in the affirmative, acknowledging that RFCL falls under Section 51(1)(d) as a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU).
Tribunal concluded that the enhancement of the sale amount and the application of a higher GP rate of 3.25% lacked justification. The resultant addition of Rs. 2,26,41,521/- was deleted. However, to cover possible income leakage, an ad hoc addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- was allowed.
