"October, 2018" Archive - Page 4

No action can be taken if no specific evidence of profiteering: NAA

Sh. Raman Khaira Vs M/s. Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Sh. Raman Khaira Vs M/s. Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We have carefully considered the Report filed by the Applicant No. 2 as well as the submissions made by the Respondent No. 1 and it is obvious from the narration of the facts stated above that the investigation conducted in the matter […...

Read More

Manual Refunds In GST- Standard Operating Procedure

Introduction: Refund module is currently not operational on the common portal of the GSTN causing delay in filing and processing of application for refund electronically. Manual filing of applications/documents/forms pertaining to refund claims has been prescribed to overcome this difficulty and, such applications shall also be processed ...

Read More

How to file GST DRC 06 against GST Determination Proceedings

A. FAQs on Filing FORM GST DRC-06 against Proceedings initiated by Tax Officer u/s 73 and 74 Related to Determination of Tax Q.1 What is Section 73 & 74 of CGST Act 2017? Ans: Section 73: Covers determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded on ITC availed or utilized for any reason […]...

Read More

How to reply GST DRC 06 issued for GST collected but not paid

A. FAQs on Filing reply to Form GST DRC-06 against proceedings initiated for tax collected but not deposited with Government Q. 1. When can a Tax Official conduct Assessment/ Adjudication on a taxable person for collecting the tax but not depositing with the Government? Ans: Any person whether registered or unregistered who had collected ...

Read More

MGT-9 is it still relevant?

It was clear that Government is not happy with the requirement of MGT-9 and Companies Amendment Act, 2017 has done away with the requirement of MGT-9. ...

Read More

Demand and Recovery under GST

Burden of proof in case a person claim that he is eligible for input tax credit under GST shall lie on the person who claims it. Hence an onerous duty is caste on the taxpayer to prove his credits failing which presumption of wrong availment or wrong utilization can be drawn. However in all other cases tax authorities need to prove that t...

Read More

Remuneration paid to managing director in previous year cannot be a criterion for invoking provisions of section 40A(2)section 40A(2)

Benninger India Private Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Further, the remuneration paid to managing director in the previous year cannot be a criterion for invoking the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act as the assessee’s turnover stood at ₹ 283 lakhs as compared to ₹ 99 lakhs in immediately previous year. This has resulted into rise of 185% in turnover. ...

Read More

Refund of Proprietary Concern can’t be adjusted towards Demand of Partnership concern

M/s Shri Mahavir Industries Vs CGST (CESTAT Delhi)

M/s Shri Mahavir Industries Vs CGST (CESTAT Delhi) A proprietary unit is an individual legal entity and any refunds due to the proprietary unit cannot be adjusted or appropriated towards the demand which may be pending recovery against an another independent legal entity, of which the proprietor of unit is a partner. It has to […]...

Read More

For Capital gain date of asset ‘held’ is to be considered and not the date of obtaining absolute legal ownership

Ramesh A. Radhakrishnan Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai)

Ramesh A. Radhakrishnan Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find that the expression used is ‘held’ as against ‘acquired’ or ‘purchased’ as used in other Sections like section 54 / 54F which shows that legislatures were conscious while making use of this expression. The expressions like ‘owned’ / ‘ac...

Read More