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
Karnataka High Court held that BBMP demanded the property tax based on Accountant General report. However the same was not provided to the petitioner. Accordingly, non-provision of Accountant General report amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
ITAT Kolkata held that gross receipts cannot be taxed entirely, estimated expenditure incurred by the society for earning this income needs to be allowed even if the society is not registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that addition on account of attributing income from offshore supplies to permanent establishment in India unjustified in case of loss.
ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance of expenditure by invoking rectification provisions of section 154 of the Income Tax Act is unjustifiable as the same is not mistake apparent on record.
Supreme Court held that exemption from excise duty given to intravenous fluids is available to products manufactured for treatment of veterinary disease if products falls under the category of intravenous fluids.
