CESTAT Kolkata rules on excise duty for physician samples distributed free of cost by medicament manufacturers. Analysis of the case of Parker Robinson Private Limited vs. CCE.
Delhi High Court rules on income tax and administrative services provided by a Singapore entity to its Indian affiliate. Analysis of the case Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bio-Rad Laboratories.
Learn about Visu Casement Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) case. ITAT ruled PCIT can’t initiate proceedings based on non-participating documents, protecting taxpayers’ interests.
The Bombay High Court restrains the GST department from issuing final orders on demand notices against Delta Corp Limited. Get the details of the case and implications.
Kerala High Court halts enforcement of demand notice in Mathew Scaria Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, pending adjudication of KGST appeal. Get details and implications.
Explore the Enbee Education Centre case vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST. CESTAT Ahmedabad clarifies the distinction between ‘consignment agent’ and ‘commission agent.’ Full text of the judgment included.
Demand of service tax for the period from 1st April 2003 to March 2005 was prima facie wrong because appellant had started rendering services to M/s IBP Co. Ltd. from 01.09.2005 as was clear from the agreement dated 01.09.2005 which had been accepted in the order-in-original.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as there was failure on the part of AO as to which limb of Section 271(1)(c) got attracted for imposition of penalty.
Delhi High Court directed to decide afresh whether imported article i.e. gold coins are classifiable under CTH 7114 1910 or 7118 9000 bearing in mind the findings on the scope of those two entries.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond the period of four years in absence of full and true disclosure of material facts is bad in law.
