Baid Trade Fina Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 26.09.2010 claiming TDS of Rs. 79,028/- as per Form 26AS, however in the intimation/order dated 25.04.2011 u/s 143(1) of the Act, the assessee was not granted the credit of TDS without assigning any […]
Understand the importance of Merchant Export Scheme for exporters after changes in GST rate. Learn about compliances for manufacturers and exporters.
Appellant entitled to take CENVAT credit of duty paid on input. Question whether input arisen out of a process of manufacture is irrelevant.
If an assessee has cash available prior to demonetization and if he opted to deposit the same multiple times, there is no prohibition in law for such deposits.
After circulation of my article Determination of Tax and Demand with Relevant Forms under GST, I have received suggestions from colleagues and department friends to come with an an article on Demand and Recovery with Relevant Forms under GST
The challenge to the order passed under Section 73 under GST cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction since the time limit prescribed for an aggrieved assessee to prefer statutory remedy has expired before filing of the writ petition. Application for rectification of mistake can be entertained where time limit for proceedings extended by the Supreme Court.
Phool Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITAT do not find any merit into the objection of the assessee that the land in question being agricultural land cannot be treated as capital asset. The sale-deed itself goes to demonstrate that what was being transferred was an industrial land. Therefore, there is no ambiguity on these facts. […]
Krishna Knitwear Technology Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that since proceedings under I&B code have already been initiated/decided and moratorium has been declared by prohibiting all the proceedings against the corporate debtors including execution of any judgment, decree or order of any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority, present appeals […]
Assessee has shown reasonable cause for not filing the return of income before due date of return. ITAT direct AO to delete penalty levied under Section 271F
CESTAT held that there shall be consonance between allegation levelled by Revenue and the records presented against the taxpayer. Further held that the allegation cannot be justified in absence of any admission from the assessee against the alleged clandestine transaction. Moreover, third party records and statement by Director of the Company cannot be used against the assessee for non-joinder of the parties.
