Read the full text of the CESTAT Ahmedabad order in Gujarat Insecticides Ltd vs. C.C.E. & S.T. where no service tax was imposed on manufacturing through job-work.
ITAT Jaipur’s decision on Sakku Devi’s penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act due to non-compliance with notices sent to an incorrect address.
Read the full text of the CESTAT Delhi order on Agarwal Aluminiums vs. Commissioner, where area-based excise duty exemption was denied due to production date.
Explore intricate case of Putzmeister Concrete Pumps GmbH vs. Putzmeister India Pvt. Ltd. in Bombay High Court involving bank guarantees, joint ventures, and complex financial transactions
Explore Kalpesh Ganpatlal Patel Vs ITO case involving TDS on freight charges in trading business. Detailed analysis and conclusion of ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision.
Punjab and Haryana High Court rules that once goods are cleared for home consumption, they are not considered imported goods, and therefore not liable for seizure.
Vinayagamoorthy Tyres Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) In the legal case of Vinayagamoorthy Tyres Vs Deputy State Tax Officer, the Madras High Court delivered a substantial and impactful judgment that carries significant implications for tax matters. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, including its background, key arguments, and the […]
In present facts of the case, NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) observed that when Government of India had itself exempted the Petitioner from any obligation to verify the Interest Subsidy Schemes received from any Bank other than the Petitioner/Bank itself then the Petitioner cannot be hold responsible.
In present facts of the case the Appeal was under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned Order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in Consumer Complaint No. 06/2011, whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant was partly allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) deleted the additions/ disallowances on the basis of information/ evidences filed before him without providing any opportunity to AO is in violation of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A).
