Explore the Supreme Court case Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh Vs Jet Airways. Understand how a prior contract can override standing orders in appointing workmen for a fixed period.
CESTAT Delhi held that Universal Joints Parts to be used in transmission shaft, are more specifically covered under sub heading 8483 60 90 and not under heading 8708.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act duly available towards FDR interest, scrap sales and EDI charges and on account profit earned from the operation of Inland container Depot (ICD).
CESTAT Chennai held that non-renewal of Private Bonded Warehouse license alleging settlement of disputes and admission of duty liability before Settlement Commission is unjustified. As post settlement, immunity is granted to the assessee from fine, penalty and prosecution under Customs Act and any other Central Act.
ITAT Delhi held that issuance of notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax beyond six Assessment Year immediately preceding the Assessment year from the date of recording of satisfaction note/ handling over of relevant material is not in accordance with law.
ITAT Pune held that penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act duly leviable in absence of any plausible legal explanation with regard to misreporting of taxable income and increasing deductions.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for delay in furnishing of audit report not leviable on account of reasonable cause shown that delay was due to the death of director who was also an accountant of the company.
There is no relevance of date of payment of wages for reckoning limit of 15 days for payment of employees contribution to provident fund : ITAT Mumbai
ITAT Chennai held that professional fees received cannot be taxed under the head Salary merely because consultant/ professional is appointed as managing director of the company. Various details filed undoubtedly proves that professional service is rendered and accordingly taxable under ‘income from profession’.
HC held that although Revenue department has discretion to cancel GST registration from a retrospective date but doing so without valid justification constitutes the arbitrary exercise of power.
