AIC Iron Industries Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) The first issue involved in this case is whether the Appellant had availed irregular CENVAT Credit as arrived by the Department holding that it was paper transaction without receipt of raw materials. Second issue is whether under the circumstances and the facts […]
Dashrathbhai Shivabhai Chaudhary Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The assessee is engaged in farming and trading of milk and seeds. As per the information made available, the assessee made cash deposit of Rs. 21,95,000/- with Saving Bank Account. Being agricultural and the agricultural income is exempt the assessee did not file any return of income under […]
Vinayaka Steels Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) it was incumbent upon the authority under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to have heard the petitioner in person, prior to passing of the impugned order. That apart, the impugned order rejects the explanation tendered by the petitioner vide reply dated […]
Gaurav Trading Company Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) This Court finds that by ex parte order the first appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as he has failed to appear before the authority on 6.4.2021, 24.9.2021 and 2.11.2021. Taking a lenient view, this Court directs the Appellate Authority to reconsider the […]
CIT Vs Sardarmal Kothari (Madras High Court) There is no dispute about the fact that the assessees have invested the entire net consideration of sale of capital asset in the land itself and subsequently the assessees have invested large sums of money in the construction of the house. The cost of investment in land and […]
It is clear on the face of the record that the officer did not consider the detailed reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner while passing the impugned orders which are sketchy and non-speaking on the face of it.
In this case employee’s contribution to PF was not deposited before due date mentioned in Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Hence, impugned amount has been rightly disallowed by AO.
Assessing Officer is directed to tax interest on income tax refund under Article 11(2) of India- Malaysia DTAA and not as Business Income
CIT Vs Swapnil Finance Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) It is reported by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties that tax effect in both the appeals for the relevant Assessment Years – 1995-96 and 1996-97 would be less than Rs. 2 Crores which is the monetary limit to prefer an appeal before this […]
CBDT had issued guidelines dated 10th September, 2011 mandating prior approval of the CCIT for scrutiny assessment and in the present case that was not obtained.
