Surendra Kumar Jain Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court) The general provision of two years, in the opinion of the Court, has been provided with one important objective i.e. to cater to a specific situation where upon search and seizure operation, if new material is found, already completed assessments are revisited. Had Parliament not prescribed such a […]
Needless to clarify that in the absence of a clear policy, the Courts may then impose interest on the quantum of refund generated either by virtue of Court orders or by virtue of substantive proceedings arising out of refund applications. Either-way, it is the Revenue who would have to pay interest on the delayed refund and as such rates determined by the Court.
Vague information given by DIT (inv) there is no other material the AO collected after preliminary enquiry which could have enabled him at the time of recording reasons to come to a conscious independent conclusion that income of the assessee has escaped assessment.
Col. J.P.S. Yadav Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited (High Court Chhatisgarh) Consequently, evaluating the facts, the finding that the notices were sent under the camouflage cover of SECL concealing the name of the sole arbitrator on 20.9.1993 and 28.10.1993 would be important. Further, the Court held that no service was affected to J.P.S. Yadav, the Managing Director and the […]
Imarti Lakdi Vyapari Sansthan, Jodhpur Vs State Of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur) Rajasthan High Court has held that the levy under section 17 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Act, 1961 is a ‘ Fee ’ and not a cess and therefore, the same is not abolished after the rollout of GST. The […]
In re Shri Kailash Chandra (GST AAR Rajasthan) Whether the activity of Operation and Maintenance (O & M) of Fluoride control project on ESCO Model and O & M work supply of goods or supply of services and what shall be the rate of GST on it? In the given contract, the activity of O […]
In the case at hand, the applicant is the recipient of the services and not supplier of such service. Accordingly, the Application is not liable for admission and therefore rejected without going into the merits of the case.
In re Borgwarner Morse Systems India Private Limited. (GST AAR Tamil Nadu) Whether automotive chains (i.e., silent chains used in petrol engines and roller chains used in diesel engines) manufactured by the applicant are classifiable under HSN 8409 or 7315? “Roller chains” supplied by the applicant are classifiable under CTH 73151100 and ‘Inverted tooth chains […]
Sh. Raman Khaira Vs M/s. Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We have carefully considered the Report filed by the Applicant No. 2 as well as the submissions made by the Respondent No. 1 and it is obvious from the narration of the facts stated above that the investigation conducted in the matter […]
Respondent could not establish profiteering for want of cogent and reliable evidence and hence no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 has been found in this case.
