Calcutta High Court decision on Anmol Industries vs WB AAR case. Challenge to AAR rejection of GST exemption ruling application. Appellate authority option discussed.
Bombay High court held that SVLDR scheme is a dispute resolution scheme. The substantive benefit under the scheme cannot be denied for technical reasons.
ITAT Raipur held that addition as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable in as much as the assessee company has duly discharged the onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the investor company.
SC in UOI v. Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Education Trust held that educational institution making huge surplus is not eligible for section 10(23C)(vi) exemption
Progressive Metals Pvt. Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (Calcutta High Court) It is not in dispute that the vehicle along with the goods entered the Durgapur industrial belt within the validity of the e-way bill. The vehicle was intercepted on 9th May, 2022 at 9:35 AM at Durgapur and the vehicle was detained along with the […]
Moser Baer Karamchari Union Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India) By way of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – union has sought for an appropriate writ, direction or order striking down Section 327(7) of the Companies Act, 2013 as arbitrary and violative of Article 21 […]
Deep Industries Limited Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The limited question needs to be answered in this matter is whether interest on the amount of Cenvat credit availed but not utilized is recoverable or otherwise. The recovery of interest on the inadmissible Cenvat credit has been directed under Rule14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, […]
Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the reasons for dismissing the appeal filed by the Department as time barred. The Department had not produced any evidence to show the date on which the Reviewing Authority received the Order-in-Original.
CESTAT held that Service Tax liability of a sub-contractor would never cease, even when the main contractor remits Service Tax.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee is entitled to claim of unabsorbed brought-forward depreciation to be set off against income from other sources as available during the year.
