Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 contains an enabling provision under Section 227 wherein the insolvency and liquidation process of Financial Service Providers (FSPs) can be initiated. But until 14.11.2019, no FSPs were notified and no mechanism or procedure was provided under the Code in this regard.
You may perhaps be aware that the GST Council in its meeting held on 20.09.2019 at Goa recommended that in the case of registered persons other than body corporate (e.g. proprietorship, HUF or partnership firm) engaged in renting of vehicles and paying 5% GST (without availing ITC), GST should be paid by the recipient of […]
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter known as the IBC or Code) has been establishing a knowledge-based approach in the Indian legal system. Moreover, since implication, it has also created a practical approach towards the inter-pretational and applicability of various provisions stipulated under the Code. In this article, we shall be discussing Section 5(8) of the Code, which […]
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.
