Explore the recent case ruling by ITAT Chennai where the verdict was overturned due to a pending delay condonation application, highlighting the importance of due process in tax disputes.
Explore the Competition Commission of India’s judgment on Jitendra Bathla’s allegations against DLF Gayatri Developers. Analysis of Section 4 violation in Club Agreement and market assessment.
In a tax dispute with Baroda Rayon Corporation, the CESTAT Ahmedabad has ordered a fresh review due to the legal status of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This case raises critical questions regarding the interpretation and application of taxation laws.
In a significant ruling, ITAT Ahmedabad deemed an assessment under Sec 147 of the Income Tax Act, based solely on cash deposit information, as invalid in the case of DineshkumarDalsangbhai Chaudhary Kankavati Society Vs ITO.
ITAT Delhi, in the ACIT Vs TV Today Network Ltd case, ruled that no penalty for failure to deduct TDS is applicable if the assessee added back the expense on which the tax was not deducted.
CESTAT Delhi held that the appellant can duly avail the credit of service tax paid on rail freight on the strength of the certified copy of railway receipts read with Monthly Consolidated Certificates and STTG certificate issued by the Western Central railway.
Held that an amount of foreign assignment allowance received for the services rendered outside India by way of (Travel Currency Card) TCC abroad is not taxable in India.
Bombay High Court held that issuance of notice and all consequential proceedings in the name of a deceased assessee are null and void. Accordingly, order passed thereon is liable to be quashed and set aside.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that decision conveying denial of exemption under DFIA Scheme is challengeable by way of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Denial of exemption is not merely a query but the decision of assessing officer and hence appeal can be preferred against the same.
In the case of Agrawal Pathshala Vs ITO, ITAT Delhi nullified CIT(A)’s dismissal due to a lack of substantive review on the grounds. The ITAT noted that dismissal was primarily due to a delay in filing, not a case assessment.
