CESTAT Mumbai held that eligibility of benefit of notification no. 30/2004-CE dated 9th July 2004 owing to reversal of CENVAT Credit needs to be examined by lower authorities. Accordingly, matter restored back to original authority for fresh determination.
CESTAT Mumbai held that as differential duty was paid with interest on expiry of export obligation period, there is no violation of the conditions of Advance License under Notification no. 96/2009-Cus. dated 11.09.2009 and hence redemption fine and penalty set aside.
Explore the judgment from the Allahabad High Court in the case of Malik Traders vs. State of U.P. The court upheld the denial of input tax credit due to insufficient evidence, highlighting the importance of providing comprehensive proof of transactions in GST cases.
Explore a recent judgment from the Madras High Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Discharged Prisoners’ Aid Society vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-ACIT-ITO. The court provides relief to a non-profit organization facing a technical issue in filing their tax returns, allowing them to rectify the situation.
Explore the recent decision of the Madras High Court in Erode District Tractor Owners Association Vs PCIT concerning an order passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court sets aside the order and calls for a fresh decision.
Explore the recent Gujarat High Court judgment in PCIT Vs KGY Glass Industries (P) Ltd regarding the denial of concessional tax rate due to a technical glitch in filing Form 10-IC under section 115BAA for AY 2020-21.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides for availment of entire amount of credit of input services even though certain portion must have been used in manufacture of exempted goods.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 [valuation rules] is effected only when inputs are supplied and sale is effected to the buyer by the Principal Manufacturer. Thus, Rule 10A of valuation rules doesn’t come into play for all manner of ‘job-work’.
Supreme Court concluded that the matter relating to true construction, meaning and import of the expression ‘vacant land’ contained in Section 2(q) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 should be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
Bombay High Court held that the reopening notice can be sustained only on the basis of the ground mentioned in the reasons recorded. It is not open to the revenue to add and/or supplement later the reasons recorded at the time of reopening notice. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings set aside.
