assessee
CESTAT | Refund of Service Tax allowed where assessee paid the same under erroneous self-assessment
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): A Coram of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member), rejected
CESTAT | Clandestine removal sustainable in respect of duplicate invoices maintained by the assessee
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): This appeal was filed by Revenue before a Coram of Madhu Mohan Damodhar (Technical
CESTAT | Correctness of exercise of discretion in accordance with limitation law not under the scrutiny of the forum
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai: Assessee preferred this appeal before P. Dinesha, J., where assessee was only aggrieved by
P&H HC | Selling of plots merely ancillary activity carried out for improvement of area cannot be equated with carrying of business
Punjab and Haryana High Court: This order disposed of five appeals filed by revenue under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961
Letters sent to the State to be decided first where assessee was unable to file the online quarterly returns
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Petitioner had filed this petition before a 2-Judge Bench of Ajay Kumar Mittal and Sudip Ahluwalia, JJ.,
Assessee failed to show land as agricultural thus no exemption granted, liable to be assessed
Kerala High Court: A 2-Judge Bench comprising of K.Vinod Chandran and Ashok Menon, JJ. dealt with an appeal against the order of
Assessee liable under Section 3-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948; no error in findings of Tribunal found
Allahabad High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J., dealt with a question where petitioner/Assessee was engaged in
Ambiguity in tax exemption provisions to be interpreted in favour of the revenue; 20-year old ratio held not correct: SC
Supreme Court: A five-Judge Constitution Bench speaking through N.V. Ramana, J., while invalidating the ratio of Sun Export Corpn. v. Collector of