HC stayed the demand of penalty and interest raised by the Revenue Department, during the pendency of writ petition, subject to the condition that the assessee deposits the entire amount of tax demanded within a period of 15 days, since the assessee wanted to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching GST Appellate Tribunal
N.B.S. Crackle not classifiable as sugar boiled confectionery, Its industrial use in ice cream production sets it apart from consumer-oriented confectionery, leading to a distinct classification perspective.
AAR Andhra Pradesh ruled that no reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) is required on a financial credit note issued for post sale discount. Gain insights into the ruling and its implications for businesses.
In a judgment issued on May 12, SC highlighted serious lapses and uncertainty in implementation of Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act, which has forced many working women to leave their jobs.
Conclusion: Arrears of property tax and water tax until the date of confirmation of sale, i.e., 04.07.2003, would qualify as the expenses for “preserving, realising or getting in” the assets of the company and thus, should have to be paid in priority by the appellant OL.
ITAT Delhi held that the revenue authorities are not entitled to appropriate the taxes which have been paid in excess of the due taxes to be paid by the assessee. Accordingly, reducing refund by withdrawing benefit of TDS on advance rent received is unjustified.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that as the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant by profession and it is his first offence and he has been in jail since long. Accordingly, continuance incarceration of the petitioner is not justified. Hence, bail granted.
Explore the PCPL and RK-JV Vs State of Bihar case regarding GST appeal rights and the tribunal’s absence, with insights into statutory remedies and court directives.
ITAT Mumbai resorted back the matter to AO with direction to find out from the relevant PF authorities about the term every month as mentioned in Clause 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme (EPF Scheme).
ITAT held that in the absence of an ascertainable amount and identifiable payee, the machinery provisions of recovering tax deducted at source falls flat
