Explore the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling on Steel & Metals Co. penalty for CENVAT invoicing violations. Understand the case, analysis, and the implications of Rule 26.
Reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis without any scope of addition, deletion or substitution therein even if supportive material emerges at a later stage.
Explore the dispute in Sh. Avtar Singh case where the Assessing Officer decision to reopen the assessment is challenged. Detailed analysis of cash deposits and legal aspects.
Rupal Jain Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) We notice that the assessee has not only discharged the primary onus by filing confirmation and the IT returns and balance sheet of the lenders, the assessee is also stated to have paid interest in most of the cases and deducted TDS thereon. Noticiably, the lenders are the family […]
Abdul Samad & Sons Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) From the finding of Ld. CIT(A), it is clear that the finding is based on the premise that the assessee failed to substantiate the expenditure however the contention of the assessee is that due to flood material evidences was washed away and FIR was duly registered, further […]
Abhishek Gumber Vs Commissioner of GST (Delhi High Court) The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that under the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), show cause notice for a particular cause of action can be issued either under Section 73 or Section 74 of the said Act and once […]
Patna High Court refuses stay on GST demand for Manokamna, citing Section 16(4) of GST Act. Analysis of the judgment on vires of Section 112 and implications.
ITAT Amritsar quashes ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.1,02,350 by ITO, citing lack of specificity in voucher verification. Analysis of the case & key arguments.
In the case of Shri M.Y. Jahabar Sadique vs. ITO, ITAT Chennai confirms AO decision on unexplained cash gifts and discrepancies in business advances. Detailed analysis here.
It is a clear case of an omission and, thus, non-application mind by the AO in the matter. That an absence or lack of enquiry, which ought to have been made under the circumstances, renders the order as erroneous in-so-far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, liable for revision u/s. 263,
