Chhattisgarh High Court held that an application for extension of time by exporter to make exports beyond the period of 6 months was rejected by the department after more than 2 ½ years. Accordingly, exporters granted benefit of rebate of excise duty paid on excisable goods exported beyond time limit of 6 months.
ITAT Delhi held that that the departmental authorities cannot question the validity of Tax Residency Certificate. Once the assessee holds a valid TRC, it proves the residential status of the assessee as resident of Mauritius, hence, it will be eligible to treaty benefits.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that treating transaction of sale of land as business income without any base which indicates that the transaction would be an adventure in the nature of trade. Hence, AO rightly treated sale of land as capital gain.
Madhya Pradesh High Court the time period of 30 days stipulated in Section 128 is relaxable. Accordingly, review u/s 128 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS Scheme, 2019) allowable if reasons are assigned by the Revenue which do not fall foul of reasonableness clause under Article 14 of Constitution.
Allahabad High Court held that seizure memo could not be sustained in the eye of law as authorities below have not recorded any findings with regard to submission of the petitioner with regard to that there was break down of the vehicle and the driver fell ill in the matter of e-way bill expiry.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that milk cream is different from milk. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed and demand of tax @ 4% sustained.
Madras High Court held that two wheeler fan belts falls under entry 30 of Part-C of TNGST Act attracting 5% tax and tractor fan belts are specifically found mentioned under entry 27 of Part-B of TNGST Act attracting 3% tax. Hence, it is not right to invoke general entry 50 to the same.
Once the ST-3 returns are filed, onus lies on Central Excise Officer to meticulously review them. Should there be any discrepancies, the officer must conduct a best judgment assessment under Section 72 and initiate an SCN under Section 73 within the stipulated timeframe. If the officer overlooks any aspect leading to a tax oversight, it’s the officer who bears the responsibility, not the appellant.
Delhi High Court rules in the case of Movish Realtech Private Limited vs. DCIT. The court addresses the initiation of reassessment based on statements of accommodation entry providers in income tax matters.
Madras High Court upholds employees’ right to express critical views in private WhatsApp groups. Learn about case A. Lakshminarayanan vs Assistant General Manager and its implications
