Gujarat High Court held that misconduct charges against the auditor not sustained stating the Statute provides remedy of appeal is only available to a member of ICAI against the decision of the Board Discipline or Disciplinary Committee imposing any penalty. The same is not available to the complainant or informant.
ITAT Delhi held that addition of interest free security deposit sustained as the same is not refunded to the Developer even after lapse of more than seven years by merely stating that the Developer had not provided completion certificate.
Delhi High Court held that show cause notice issued after the expiry of the prescribed period under section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 would not survive in law.
CESTAT Chennai allowed the assessee’s appeal, stating that the demand of duty with interest was time-barred and could not be sustained. The Tribunal held that the SCN issued after the appeal stage lacked validity and that the demand of duty and interest was not justified. The department’s appeal was dismissed.
The Delhi High Court recently dealt with two writ petitions (W.P.(C) 6061/2023 and W.P.(C) 6062/2023) concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The issue raised in these petitions was similar to the one in another case titled “Harvinder Singh (HUF) v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
The appeal in the case of Simple Singh vs. ITO was directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2011-12
Agasthya Auto Products LLP filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal raised multiple grounds, challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
CESTAT Chennai acknowledged the procedural violation by the appellant but recognized that the goods underwent 100% examination, revealing no banned substances. Considering this and the appellant’s cost and delay in the clearance process, the CESTAT Chennai found the imposed redemption fine and penalties excessive. Therefore, the CESTAT Chennai reduced the redemption fine to INR 1,00,000 and the penalty to INR 50,000.
Gemini Overseas Limited filed a writ petition challenging the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without approval from the “Specified Authority” as required under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A noteworthy ruling from the Calcutta High Court upholds a preliminary report issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue in the case of non-filing of an objection by Jac Olivol Products Private Limited, shedding light on critical nuances of the WBGST Act.
