Bombay High Court resolves Tru-Sprag Freewheels Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India case, directing customs and DGFT to rectify exporters’ procedural errors, ensuring EPCG Scheme benefits. The court’s intervention leads to systemic improvements and the petitioner’s issue resolution.
Madras High Court quashes orders against D.Y. Beathel Enterprises for input tax credit recovery, citing procedural flaws and directs fresh enquiry. Emphasizes examination of sellers and initiation of recovery against them, ensuring fair investigation.
Delve into the Vedanta Aluminium Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise case, where CESTAT Kolkata set aside an order rejecting a refund claim of service tax and ordered re-adjudication due to the absence of a stated reason in the original decision.
Explore the recent judgement of ITAT Pune in the case of Rupa Sanjay Nigade Vs ITO, where the Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalty under Section 271B due to non-audit of books of accounts.
ITAT Pune held that as per third proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b), where the stamp value of the immovable property is disputed by the assessee on the ground mentioned in section 50C(2), the AO may refer the valuation of such property to the Valuation Officer. Accordingly, matter remanded.
An in-depth analysis of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune’s decision allowing cooperative societies to claim a tax deduction for interest income on surplus funds deposited in cooperative banks and scheduled banks under Sections 80P(2)(a)i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that as conditions in second proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) satisfied, stamp duty as on the date of agreement would be compared with agreement value. Accordingly, since the stamp duty value is less than the agreement value, addition unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that the income portion of the on-money is assessable in the year in which the sale of concerned flat is declared by the assessee.
Analysis of the recent ITAT Pune decision in the Mayur Wines Vs NFAC case, highlighting the importance of correct procedures in claiming partnership remuneration deductions under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the appellant has failed to discharge its burden of proving that burden of duty has not been passed on to the customer. Accordingly, since incidence of the duty has been passed on to the buyers therefore, the refund is hit by the principles of unjust enrichment.
