Without any single evidence of taking credit in SCN, the SCN is bald & proceedings flowing from said SCN liable to be quashed on this threshold point itself.
The failure on the part of the Respondents to update their official portal, cannot be permitted to result in any sort of prejudice to the Petitioner, Notwithstanding the fact that an order of assessment has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
Renu Ratnakar Bhattacharya Vs CIT (Appeals) (ITAT Mumbai) It is the case of the assessee that at the time of purchase of house property the assessee paid brokerage to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- at the rate of 1% of the agreement cost of the new property to one Mr. Rajesh Mahendru. The assessee brought on […]
There is no restriction in CENVAT Credit Rules that Appellants should not use the prime quality materials for the manufacture of final products, CENVAT credit cannot be denied
One of the issue raised in the present petition is that the supply of mobile recharge coupons and Direct To Home (DTH) recharge vouchers to recipients, who are located in other States, would be interstate supply or intra-state supply.
Barua and Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. (Meghalaya High Court) The affidavit-in-reply filed by the assessee has robustly denied that the relevant email address to which the three notices of April, 2022 were issued belonged to the assesse or that such address had been furnished by any authorised officer of the […]
Rekha Saxena Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax (Delhi High Court) HC held that orders cancelling registration are a serious matter, they impact the registrants, and therefore, the concerned officer should carefully pen down the orders, and not rely on the system generated orders. In this case, it appears that the order dated […]
Bharat Keshavlal Shah Vs PCIT (ITAT Pune) Lastly comes the issue of section 56(2)(vii) made applicable in assessee’s case on account of alleged difference between stamp valuation and actual purchase consideration qua the sale deed executed in the relevant previous year. A perusal of the said sale deed dated 31.12.2013, and more particularly, the schedule […]
The AO had made out a case that if the assessee company had paid dividend instead of remuneration to directors, such payment would have been fetched more tax. In our considered opinion, there is no question of changing the character of transaction from payment of salary to the possible payment of dividend, resulting into potential higher inflow of tax.
It is the case of the assessee that the rent payment to the licensor is independent of the CAM charges payable and thus the CAM charges cannot partake the character of rent. The assessee thus contends that the deduction rate applicable on CAM charges @2% under Section 194C has been rightly deducted.
