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.
Calcutta High Court allows re-hearing and extension to file objections in a case concerning Section 24 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act. The decision provides an opportunity for a more detailed review of the law.
Bombay High Court’s landmark ruling confirms that only the profit element of bogus purchases can be added to taxable income, emphasizing the requirement for reconciliation of stock in cases of alleged accommodation entries.
CESTAT Chennai held that when no time limit is prescribed under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 the department cannot reject the request for conversion of shipping bill.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Cenvat Credit availed on the strength of duty paying documents cannot be denied alleging that invoices issued by manufacturer were not genuine.
SC upholds observations made by Allahabad HC, Once the valid document i.e. e-way bill and tax invoice, builty was accompanying with goods, therefore authorities ought not to have drag petitioner in unnecessary litigation.
