ACIT Vs Joseph Selvakumar Selvan (ITAT Chennai) Upon careful consideration, it could be gathered that the return of income was already scrutinized u/s 143(3) and the issue of computation of capital gain was duly examined by Ld. AO. The requisite queries were raised by Ld. AO which were duly replied by the assessee along with […]
Desai and Diwanji Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Mumbai) It was held in that decision that in the event of centralised billing and centralised accounting system, when one registration is permissible under Section 4(2), discharging Service Tax liability from the registered premises would not disentitled the benefits of CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax paid […]
IND Synergy Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Hyderabad) This appeal has been filed by M/s IND Synergy Ltd., (Raipur) assailing the order-in-original dated 31.07.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs Visakhapatnam, the operative part of which is as follows: (a) “I deny the benefit of Notification No. 097/2004-Customs dated 17.09.2004 to the capital […]
Nirmala Menon Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) To be noted, that the order is stated to have uploaded on the website of the portal, but the petitioner has not been intimated about such uploading by any means. It is only when coercive recovery was taken to recover the demand under the order that […]
Addl. CIT Vs TV Today Network Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The Ground in respect of deleting disallowance of Rs. 56,20,737/- u/s 14A of the Act on the ground that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income. The issue involved in Ground No. 2 is also decided in favour of the assessee in ITA No. 7277/Del/2018 for […]
Surender Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The assessee has suffered an assessment order dated 14/12/2016, but the assessee has challenged the same before the CIT(A) with a delay of 224 days. It is the case of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) for condoning the delay is ‘that the assessee was under the impression that his […]
The respondents have submitted a reply wherein, the averments made by the petitioner are controverted on the ground that the application for cancellation of registration was made in FORM GST REG-29 and not in FORM GST REG-16 and thus, the system did not link the GSTIN of Shri Abdul Hameed Bhati (the deceased proprietor of the firm) to the GSTIN of the petitioner herein.
