Judgements by Ayush

The CESTAT, New Delhi Principal Bench, in M/s. Twenty Four Guarding Private Limited v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi (East), Final Order No. 51353/2026 dated 20.08.2026, examined a substantial Service Tax/CENVAT dispute involving eight Show Cause Notices

The Supreme Court, in Audi Automobiles & Ors. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Indore, examined whether the Department could invoke the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 i

CESTAT Mumbai: Customs Broker Licence Suspension Set Aside for Breach of Mandatory 15-Day Hearing Timeline

This Court is inclined to quash the impugned orders and accordingly the impugned orders are quashed. The respondents shall permit the petitioner to file manual returns whenever the petitioner is claiming ITC on the outward supply / sales without payi

Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring nil income filed by the assessee, was selected for scrutiny with the service of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), issued on 27th Aug

The DIT (E) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in canceling the Registration u/s 12A(a) with effect from assessment year 2009-10 and onwards, discarding the fact that the Society is engaged in providing medical relief to the

The facts as stated in the order of Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) are that the assessee is in the business of inbound tour operation and it provides services to foreign tourists visiting the Indian subcontinent. The assessee does not have any b

Assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that applying Rule 8D for the year under consideration is against the ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs D

if the assessee through proper application can satisfy the Tribunal for such non appearance on the date of hearing, the Tribunal may at its discretion recall this order.

At the time of hearing before us, the ld. DR appearing on behalf of revenue by pointing out the various observations made by AO and the ld. CIT(A) contended that ld.CIT(A) has given only 7 days for giving the Remand Report in respect of unexplained l