ITAT Held that, only 10% of the purchase would be added to the Appellant’s income in case where the Appellant was unable to prove the supplier’s identity. Further remanded back the matter for verification.
Action on the part of the Respondents in not issuing notice granting reasonable time to the Petitioner to remain present and passing ex parte Order is passed in gross violation of principle of natural justice.
ITAT held that ITR is a sacred document prescribed in law and reporting-error cannot be pleaded so lightly. The prescribed forms of ITR have suitable columns to furnish the details of cash-balance, this law procedure has been in statute for several years and nobody can dispute it.
The assessee was printing PAN cards for the Income Tax Department, Government of India. Service tax was paid on such activity. Sales tax authorities held that it is a works contract liable to VAT.
Petitioner seeks an order and direction against to it to rectify inadvertent mistake in mentioning incorrect place of supply in Form GSTR1
HC held that, payment of tax made during the conduct of search cannot be considered as voluntary payment of tax. Further directed the Revenue Department to refund the amount deposited by the assessee along with the interest.
A comprehensive guide on understanding and calculating your Annual Returns for GST Audit Series (Part 7), including 50 Important and Practical FAQs.
Transition of 56 company forms from V2 to V3 portal In our continuous endeavour to serve you better, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs is launching Second set of Company Forms covering 56 forms in two different lots on MCA21 V3 portal. 10 out of 56 forms will be launched on 09th January 2023 at 12:00 […]
Vainguinim Valley Resort Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The Hon’ble High Court held that there was no service provider or service receiver contract between the parties justifying the levy of service tax set aside. Matter remanded back. The Department issued show cause notice on the Petitioner demanding service tax on the amount received from […]
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules prescribes that if for ‘Any reason’ the use of the said credit is not possible, the manufacturer or provider of the output service shall be allowed refund of such amount. The sole reason for denying the refund claim is […]
