Merely because assessee had not disclosed mode of payment of salary i.e. either by cheque or cash, the same should not doubted especially when such salary to security guards came to Rs.27,000/- per month for four persons. Even, if the payment was made in cash, there would be no violation of section 40A(3).
we invoke your kind attention to the following burning core issues for discussion in the meeting of the GST Council with a request to please take immediate action in order to relieve the traders from compliance of the same temporarily.
Important Announcement regd. ICAI Foundation Exams – June 2021 – Patan (Gujarat) & Malegaon (Maharashtra) are added to the list of cities where the Foundation Examinations-June 2021 are scheduled to be held on June 24th, 26th, 28th & 30th 2021 Examination Department The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India 27th May, 2021 IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT No. […]
J.S. Grover Autos Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax (Punjab & Haryana High Court) It is undisputed fact that petitioner has filed an appeal before First Appellate Authority against the assessment order, whereby demand was created. It is also undisputed that Board Circulars are binding on department and as per Circular […]
Manoj Singhal Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) On going through the details, we find that the deduction claimed u/s 54F was Rs.6,12,10,100/- whereas the deduction eligible was Rs.6,11,19,500/-. Thus, there is a computational difference of Rs.90,600/- in the claim of deduction u/s 54F which could have been rectified u/s. 154. The provisions of section 263 need […]
Explore the CESTAT Chandigarh ruling in Bansal Steel Power Limited vs. Commissioner of CE & ST, Rohtak, highlighting the flawed investigation leading to the denial of credit on returned goods. Uncover crucial insights for businesses dealing with similar issues.