It it is revealed that the Respondent is executing his Synera project under the Affordable Housing Scheme approved by the Government of Haryana under the Prime Minister Awas Yojana and is constructing both the residential and commercial accommodation.
It is also evident from above narration of facts that Respondent has denied benefit of rate reduction to buyers of product Sanitary Napkin in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus resorted to profiteering, which is an offence under section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017
Technology is the one thing which has helped a man in a lot of ways, the most important is without any doubt being able to save time. We can now do a lot more in less amount of time and without having to stress the way people before us used to do. When it comes […]
Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division & Anr. Vs DDIT (Delhi High Court) Hon’ble high court held that ‘mere cooperation’ between consortium members not results in an AOP. High Court held that where there is an independent / separate scope of work for each member coupled with no profit / loss or risk sharing between the […]
Where assessee claimed that there was wrong credit entry by payer-client in Form 26AS, AO was required to examine its genuineness before making any addition on account of mismatch between receipts reflected in Form 26AS and in profit and loss account. Thus, matter was remanded for re-adjudication.
In cases where there is stay of recovery of demand of tax, the Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority. The Tribunal should consider forming a separate list of such cases which should be heard on priority after arranging the cases on the basis of their seniority as well as the quantum involved in the stay.
We find that in this case the assessment was framed by the AO after making ex-parte addition of Rs.16,54,146/-towards 100% of the bogus purchases which the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings reduced to 12.5% of such purchases. In our opinion, this is a clear cut case where the income has been estimated by applying a percentage of 12.5% and therefore the penalty under section 271(1)(c) can not be imposed. We are, therefore, setting aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty.
Aagman Services Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) High Court held that although the failure was on the part of the assessee to enter the GST input credit in the wrong column of the TRAN-1, the error was inadvertent and bona fide – High Court directed the Department to either […]
ITO Vs. Ambika Metalchem Impex P. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case, we find that the assessee has duly discharged the initial onus of proving the identity of the investors, creditworthiness of the transactions and genuineness of the transactions. Notices issued u/s 133(6) have been responded to. In such a scenario, the onus to […]
The reopening of an assessment is carried out by the Assessing Officer by first issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and thereafter proceeding to make a reassessment order under Section 147 of the Act. Yet, in certain circumstances, the assessee is advised or he decides to challenge […]
