ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on wrong and irrelevant facts recorded under the reasons recorded for the formation of belief of escapement of income chargeable to income tax is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Kolkata quashes Excise Duty demand on Super Smelters Limited for non-maintenance of separate accounts for input services used in exempted trading activities. Analysis and implications.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rendering a decision on goods that are yet to be provisionally assessed would be a premature intervention. The possible detriment that may arise on a future date is not a grievance that should be entertained unless and until it does translate as one upon occurrence of import or export of goods.
ITAT Delhi affirms penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act against Amandeep Singh Sran for concealing income. Analysis of the case and its implications.
Telangana High Court has held that notices and proceedings initiated against the amalgamated Company (i.e. non-existing company) deserves to be set aside/quashed. Accordingly, entire proceedings held as bad-in-law.
Calcutta High Court judgment on a GST liability dispute involving execution of works contracts before and after GST introduction.
Held that the amounts received for the use of transponder of tele-communication service charges are not royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and also under Article 12(8) of Indo Netherland DTAA.
ITAT Jaipur restored the matter back to CIT(E) as application for registration u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act was rejected solely due to alleged non-genuineness of the activities as charitable nature of activities of assessee not disputed.
Supreme Court held that tax/fee/ charge on erection of mobile towers is not upon the owner of the land and building but on the person who is responsible for erecting of the mobile tower on the land and building and is thus using the land or building for erection of the mobile tower.
Bombay High Court held that taking recourse to the provisions of Section 166A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for issuance of the Letter of Rogatory by the Magistrate without following procedure prescribed under section 155(2) cannot be sustained and deserved to be quashed.
