S.K. Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT observed that Though ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed only one aspect of rejecting the claims i.e. time bar aspect. But it is observed that the orders of Original Authorities have been upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) resulting into merger of these orders. The perusal of Orders-in-Original is […]
Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs C.CGST & CEx- Gandhinagar (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant, Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC for short) is liable to pay service tax on the rent recovered towards renting of shops, godown, office etc. to the commission agents/ traders under the head […]
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s 68 unsustainable as genuineness of transaction routed through banking channel cannot be doubted on the basis of surmises and conjectures based on suspicion and doubts.
Jamals Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) The Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit, at the outset, that the appellant, being a developer, is engaged in the development of residential projects and the contracts entered into with its customers were in the nature of composite contract involving both service and transfer of property […]
From gift deed it is crystal clear that the said property was gifted by assesee to his sister out of natural love and affection and it was in this back drop that assessee claimed before CIT(A) that incidence of transfer of immovable property was not liable to tax in his hands.
Commission paid to the overseas agents is in respect of service provided by that agent to the appellant to export its goods and thereby sales is promoted and Appellants are entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 14/2004 and not liable to the payment of service tax under reverse charge.
In view of non-availability of GST appellate forum against impugned order of appellate authority, writ petition is entertained by HC
Appellants claimed that services provided by them not qualify as Manpower Supply Service’as it was a contract for job work on per piece basis
SCN was issued on 27.03.2023 at 9.10.33 p.m. and petitioner was given 13 hours time to reply, which violates principles of natural justice
The necessary interested parties had not been impleaded as respondents in these four appeals. In view of the request made by learned counsel for the appellants time was granted to move appropriate applications for impleading the remaining interested parties as respondents in the four appeals.
