Discover the key details of Rama Colour Prints vs. Commissioner of Service Tax case, highlighting disclosure in ST-3 returns and limitation issues.
CESTAT Chennai held that invocation of extended period of limitation unjustified as issue was mired in litigation and interpretation of law. Further, appellant is public sector undertaking and hence there is no scope of suppression with an intention to evade tax.
CESTAT Ahmedabad grants relief to Intas Pharmaceuticals, ruling that Customs Duty benefit cannot be denied to a loan licensee importer. Details of the case here.
ITAT Pune rules that assessment under limited scrutiny cannot exceed its prescribed scope, preventing the use of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
The Rajasthan High Court addresses the absence of a mechanism for matching supplier credit notes with ITC reversal, seeking a solution from authorities.
Income received by assessee-UK telecom company from an Indian telecom company for rendering roaming services to customers abroad was not ‘royalty’ as assessee-UK had not provided any right, as mentioned in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi), or any kind of use of any process or equipment to VIL
ITAT Mumbai held that the partner should be entitled to all the deductions which he was entitled while computing his share of profits in the firm. Thus, interest expenditure incurred by the assessee, as capital was introduced from borrowed funds, should be allowed as expenditure against remuneration income from the firm.
CESTAT Delhi remanded the matter to designated authority in the matter of imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of MEG ‘Mono Ethylene Glycol’ as selective examination with respect to only one period was made as base for determination of injury.
In a crucial ruling, ITAT Chennai allows Section 54F deduction for a new residential property purchase, clarifying tax implications. Learn more in this detailed analysis.
In a case involving Smt. Madhuvalli Lakamraju vs. ADIT, ITAT Hyderabad deletes the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act due to lack of source for cash deposits.
