Updates Of the Day
1.Demand of duty is a charge of suppression, as the sale invoice of the chassis manufacturer was not in possession of the appellant, therefore, the appellant was not in a position to provide the same to the department. The extended period of limitation is not invokable at all. – Tribunal. [M/s. HMM Coaches Limited vs CCE, Panchkula - 2016 (2) TMI 143 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]
2.Exemption of Services –Notification No. 25 dated 20.06.2012 updated till date.
3.Procedure, Formats and Standards for ensuring secured transmission of electronic communication to taxpayer. Notification No. 2/2016DGIT(S)/DIT(S)-3/AST/Paperless Proceedings/96/2015-1
4.Under no circumstances, the Director can be allowed to compete the business of the company, in which he/she is already a director, to exploit the mark in order to give the impression to the public at large that he/she has any association or affiliation of the company in which he/she is still a director. – HC. [RAJEEV SAUMITRA vs NEETU SINGH AND ORS - 2016 (2) TMI 134 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
5.Rule 26 of CE Rules, 2002 , Penalty is not sustainable where actual involvement of parties in clandestine removal of goods is not established – HC. [Rakesh Kumar Garg & others vs. CCR (Delhi High Court), CEAC1/2011 & CEAC 2/2011 & CEAC 3/2011].
6.Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) ,bogus transaction of sale and purchase of asset, it is a clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars in the form of forged invoices and thereby concealed the particulars of income of the assessee. Levy of penalty confirmed by Tribunal. [M/s ICICI Bank Ltd., (erstwhile Bank of Madura Ltd.) Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I (2) , Chennai - 2016 (2) TMI 167 - ITAT CHENNAI].
For more News Like us on https://www.facebook.com/caonlineofficial Or Subscribe on mail visit : www.caonline.in
1.Demand of duty is a charge of suppression, as the sale invoice of the chassis manufacturer was not in possession of the appellant, therefore, the appellant was not in a position to provide the same to the department. The extended period of limitation is not invokable at all. – Tribunal. [M/s. HMM Coaches Limited vs CCE, Panchkula - 2016 (2) TMI 143 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]
2.Exemption of Services –Notification No. 25 dated 20.06.2012 updated till date.
3.Procedure, Formats and Standards for ensuring secured transmission of electronic communication to taxpayer. Notification No. 2/2016DGIT(S)/DIT(S)-3/AST/Paperless Proceedings/96/2015-1
4.Under no circumstances, the Director can be allowed to compete the business of the company, in which he/she is already a director, to exploit the mark in order to give the impression to the public at large that he/she has any association or affiliation of the company in which he/she is still a director. – HC. [RAJEEV SAUMITRA vs NEETU SINGH AND ORS - 2016 (2) TMI 134 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
5.Rule 26 of CE Rules, 2002 , Penalty is not sustainable where actual involvement of parties in clandestine removal of goods is not established – HC. [Rakesh Kumar Garg & others vs. CCR (Delhi High Court), CEAC1/2011 & CEAC 2/2011 & CEAC 3/2011].
6.Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) ,bogus transaction of sale and purchase of asset, it is a clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars in the form of forged invoices and thereby concealed the particulars of income of the assessee. Levy of penalty confirmed by Tribunal. [M/s ICICI Bank Ltd., (erstwhile Bank of Madura Ltd.) Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I (2) , Chennai - 2016 (2) TMI 167 - ITAT CHENNAI].
For more News Like us on https://www.facebook.com/caonlineofficial Or Subscribe on mail visit : www.caonline.in
Comments
Post a Comment