Prakash Chandra Purohit Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench) During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submit that at present the only purpose of issuing Summons u/s 70 of CGST Act to the petitioners is to record their statements seeking to extract the role of the petitioners in the […]
Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd Vs CIT (Orissa High Court) The purpose of Section 43B of the Act was to ensure that a liability could be claimed as deduction only if the Assessee has actually parted with the sum without any recourse to it thereafter. In the present case, the interim stay granted in […]
MTL Instruments Private Limited Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The definition of input service was amended with effect from 01.04.2011 which has been reproduced in paragraph 5.1 above. The definition contains an exclusion clause wherein the credit availed on Rent-a-Cab Services as well as Outdoor Catering Services has been specifically excluded. […]
ITAT held that lower interest received on loan given to related party for business purpose cannot be subjected to provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act.
Originative Trading Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The question that arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the remedy of the petitioner to lodge his objection to the order of provisional attachment under section 83 read with Rule 159(1) of the CGST Rules can be effectively exercised without communication […]
High Court held that in absence of specific allegations about the applicant he cannot be prosecuted for any offence under section 138 N.I. Act (Cheque Bounce Case).
DCIT Vs Clarion Technologies Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Pune) ITAT held that stand of the Revenue that assessee cannot be allowed the benefits of section 10A of the Act merely because the prescribed Audit Report in Form No.56F was not filed in the return of income, is quite erroneous. ITAT note that the AO passed order […]
Reopening of an assessment under Section 148 was not justified on the ground that AO was of the opinion that a contingency might arise in future resulting an escapement of income which would be wholly impermissible and would amount to a rewriting of the statutory provision.
GST registration once granted could be cancelled only if one of the five statutory conditions was found present. Per se, no GST registration may be cancelled by merely describing the firm that had obtained it, was ‘bogus’.
Pankaj s/o Roshan Dhawan Vs National e-Assessment Centre (Bombay High Court) HC held that we are satisfied that the assessment order dated 14.05.2021 has been passed without granting proper and meaningful opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice. It is not in dispute that as per show cause notice dated 10.04.2021 […]
