Universal Packaging Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) The legality of availing Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption without including the value of supplies to Merchant Exporters has been challenged in four appeals. The appellant, a manufacturer of Corrugated Carton Boxes, had availed the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003. However, periodic show-cause notices were […]
Bad debts Adjustment against previously created provisions constitutes actual writing off of bad debts in books of accounts & Allowable
AAAR held that, the assessee providing works contract services to Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, a government authority, would be liable to pay GST @ 18%.
Punjab & Haryana High Court directs modern communication use in notices. Email, fax, WhatsApp, Telegram for summons. Case details & court ruling.
Sanath Kumar Murali Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court) Petitioner challenged the order u/s 148A(d) for AY 2016-2017 & sought for quashing 148 notice before the Karnataka High Court. Notice u/s 148A(b) was issued to the petitioner stating that information was received which suggested that income chargeable to tax for the AY has escaped assessment within […]
Denial of CENVAT credit for non-registration of premises is not justified as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further held that, when conditions like payment of tax and receipt of service are satisfied, in such case credit cannot be denied on the basis that the credit was availed few days before the payment of tax.
ITAT Mumbai remanded the matter for adjudication of bona fide belief of TDS exemption in case of LTC relating to foreign travel vis-à-vis default u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.
Madras High Court directed the petitioner to deposit maximum penalty of 200% of the tax involved in detention matter as once the mandatory pre-deposit is complied, the order has no force and all the further recovery proceedings will be subject to final outcome of the appeal.
CESTAT Delhi held that the extended period of limitation could have been invoked only if there was suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax.
ITAT Hyderabad held that for re-assessment beyond a period of 4 years, recording of satisfaction by the CIT is a must under the Income Tax Act, 1961. In absence of the same, re-assessment proceedings are invalid.
