Tribunal grants relief to small cable TV operator for Service Tax non-payment. M/s SIFY already paid tax. Appellant’s compliance efforts noted. Penalties set aside.
Understand CESTAT’s decision in Panoli Enviro Technology Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST that effluent transportation doesn’t qualify as ‘goods’ under the Goods Transport Agency service, hence is not liable to Service Tax.
Explore an analysis of ITAT’s ruling against Timely Commercial P. Ltd for its failure to explain large share premium received, upholding an addition.
The Supreme Court of India dismisses the Special Leave Petition (SLP) and upholds the legality of the Engineering Analysis case regarding the taxability of royalty paid to foreign companies.
ITAT Mumbai held that Corporate Guarantee facility provided to overseas AE by the assessee is an international transaction and hence addition towards Arm’s Length Guarantee Fee confirmed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules that a sanctioned refund claim can be adjusted to any dues of excise duty as per Section 11 of the Central Excise Act. The case involves the appropriation of excess Cenvat credit and penalty amounts from the refund.
Karnataka High Court held that payments made to Non-resident Telecom Operators for provision of bandwidth and Inter-connectivity Usage Charge are not covered as Royalty/ FTS and, accordingly, TDS not deductible. Further, assessee is entitled to take benefit of DTAA between two countries.
CESTAT Ahmedabad upholds the addition of service tax on services provided to shipping lines, classifying them under the category of steamer agent as per Section 65(100) of the Finance Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad reduces the bank guarantee for provisional release of imported dry dates to Rs. 18 lakhs, citing the proportionate value of the goods. The appellant, K.L. International, had sought reconsideration of the original order, arguing that the goods were perishable edible goods and not restricted or prohibited.
ITAT Mumbai allows the claim of deduction u/s. 80JJAA for the assessment year 2020-21, as the taxpayer had filed the original return of income on time. The claim was initially denied due to an error in categorizing the revised return as an original return.
