ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee is eligible to claim exemption u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act as the construction of residential house completed within three years from the relevant date.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the department is liable to make payment of interest after the expiry of three months from the date the refund of pre-deposit amount becomes due.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that collection of toll by the assessee would not be considered as Business Auxiliary Service provided to NHAI as the assessee is not rendering any service which is incidental or auxiliary on behalf of NHAI and the NHAI is not undertaking any business activity.
ITAT Mumbai held that membership fee expenses have been incurred for acquisition of individual club membership is not allowable as expenditure in terms of provisions of section 37 of the Income Tax Act.ITAT Mumbai held that membership fee expenses have been incurred for acquisition of individual club membership is not allowable as expenditure in terms of provisions of section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that service provided to SEZ units are exempt from service tax vide notification no. 09/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009. Exemption benefit cannot be denied for procedural requirement.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition on account of mismatch between the income reported under form number 26AS and the income recorded in the books of accounts unsustainable since the mis-match duly explained.
Read the analysis of the case between K. S. Anbuselvan and ITO at ITAT Chennai. The court allows the appeals for re-adjudication of capital gains and deductions related to the sale of a property, following a reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for valuation
The CESTAT Chennai rules in favor of Nitco Limited in a dispute over the delayed delivery of a SAD refund sanction order by the Commissioner of Customs. The case now returns to the first appellate authority for review.
Read the full text of the judgment/order of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Enforcement. The court clarifies the power of officers under Section 67(4) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act regarding sealing or breaking premises. Get detailed analysis and conclusion.This article provides an overview of the judgment/order issued by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. versus Additional Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Enforcement. The court clarifies the power of officers under Section 67(4) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act regarding the sealing or breaking of premises. The analysis delves into the arguments presented by the petitioner and the response from the learned counsel for the Revenue. Finally, the conclusion highlights the court’s decision and subsequent actions. Analysis: The petitioner, Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., challenges the order issued by the respondent No.3 under Section 67(4) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner, a private limited company, claims to be a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act. The case revolves around the sealing of the petitioner’s premises by the respondent officers during a search operation. The petitioner argues that the sealing was done without legal authority. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the authorization order for the search was issued solely based on suspicion and does not grant the authority to seal the premises. Additionally, it is argued that Section 67(4) of the Act does not empower the respondent No.3 to seal the business premises since access was not denied by the petitioner. On the other hand, the Revenue’s counsel presents the original file, which contains an authorization issued by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Enforcement], South Zone, Bangalore. The authorization grants the officer, Sri J.J. Prakash, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the power to conduct inspection, search, and seizure of the premises in question. The court acknowledges the validity of this authorization, thus refuting the petitioner’s argument. The court refers to Section 67(4) of the Act, which empowers the authorized officer to seal or break open premises and receptacles suspected of containing goods, accounts, registers, or documents. The Revenue asserts that denial of access to the computer system and the disruption of the tally software and internet connection led to the invocation of Section 67(4) and subsequent sealing of the premises. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate, representing the respondent No.3, assures the court that the petitioner’s premises will be unsealed in the petitioner’s presence on a mutually convenient date, provided the petitioner cooperates with the inspection and search of the computer system and other records. Conclusion: After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the court orders the Revenue to unseal the premises in question on a revised date of 08.02.2019, at 11:00 a.m. The petitioner is expected to cooperate with the inspection and search of the premises, including the computer system. This judgment clarifies the power of officers under Section 67(4) of the GST Act and emphasizes the importance of lawful procedures in conducting searches and sealing premises.
In a tax dispute involving Metro Engineers, the CESTAT Ahmedabad has ordered a remand for reevaluation of service tax demands. The case highlights issues of differential service tax on various services and the potential misuse of penalty provisions.
