A. Manoharan Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT observe that the AO has made the addition under Section 69 of the Act of Rs.12,75,802/- for want of proper explanation of cash deposited during demonetisation period. The assessee tried to justify the same by submitted that the assessee had withdrawn cash from his Corporation Bank and Indian […]
Sos Finance Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Limited issue to be decided in the present case is that whether the appellants are liable for penalty under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. As regard, the imposition of penalty under Section 76 in the present case, I find the issue is settled […]
Megicon Impex Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi West & Ors. (Delhi High Court) he learned Counsel appearing for the parties have drawn attention to a notification dated 05.07.2022, whereby the period commencing from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, was directed to be excluded for computing the period of limitation, for filing […]
Colour Cottex Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Exports) (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court find merit in Revenues contentions that the relief directing adjustment of duty drawback against the petitioner’s obligation to make a pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act is not permissible. The nature of a claim for duty drawback is […]
Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the cenvat credit was denied to appellant on the ground that service being classifiable under Sponsorship Service, the appellant was supposed to discharge the service tax under GR-7 Challan. We find that the service provider M/s. K.P.H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. has […]
Gajraj Vahan Private Limited Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) As per the amended Rule 89 (1A) of CGST Rules, 2017 and Circular dated 25.09.2021, the limitation period for seeking refund would be two years from the date of the instant notification i.e. 24.09.2021. However, in the face of rejection order, petitioner cannot make […]
Devinder Gupta & Sons (HUF) Vs CIT (ITAT Delhi) It is an admitted position that the assessee had taken loan from the lender in the earlier years, a part of which has been repaid during the year albeit in cash. The amount of loan has been consequently reduced. A confirmation whereof from the lender has […]
Parthiv V Dave Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the exporter has made a serious offence by mis-declaring the quantity i.e. against 30,000 pairs declared in the export document only physical quantity found 405 pairs. Moreover, the value was also shown exorbitantly high. I find that though the appellant has acted as CHA and […]
WHEREAS, filing of appeal applications in Form GST APL-01 electronically in the GST Common Portal is not possible in certain specific circumstances where the proper officers have passed orders manually disposing the rectification applications filed manually under Section 161 of the Odisha Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
Unideep Food Vs T.K. Satapathy (Orissa high court) Orissa High Court held that assessee failed to produce any fresh affidavits proving that it had borrowed unsecured loans from lender farmers as directed by ITAT while remanding the matter. Accordingly, addition under section 68 sustained. Facts- This appeal by the Assessee is directed against an order […]
