Calcutta High Court mandates re-evaluation of ETC Agro Processing’s time-barred IGST refund, overturning denial based on an unconstitutional notification.
ITAT Bangalore has quashed assessment order in case of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences against ACIT. Grounds for invalidation were non-service of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) of Income-tax Act.
Case between Jai Venktesh Concast Private Limited and the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, was heard by the Calcutta High Court. The writ petitioners filed an intra-court appeal against the order of the learned Single Bench, which directed them to pay 20% of the disputed tax for interim protection from recovery.
CESTAT Chennai upheld the order in favor of Usha International Ltd in a case against the Commissioner of Customs. The appeal was dismissed on grounds of limitation due to the department’s failure to submit the date of communication of the order.
High Court of Gauhati, after examining detailed submissions, directs DGGI to produce original records in the court for inspection of the court to ascertain whether there was ‘reason to believe’ or was it a mere pretence.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imposing penalty under rule 209A against the person who is only involved in maintaining the accounts of the company is unjustified and unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that re-classification from ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Services’ to ‘works contract service’ justified as contract and VAT registration proves that contract is work contract service.
ITAT Mumbai held that as there was no malafide or deliberate in action on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal with delay of 387 days before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, it was directed to CIT(A) to condone the delay.
On the date of approval of Resolution Plan by Adjudicating Authority, all such claims which are not a part of Resolution Plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim which is not a part of the Resolution Plan.
ITAT Delhi held that in absence of a Permanent Establishment, provisions of section 44BB of the Income Tax Act has no application.
