If initiation of penalty is one limb & levy of penalty is on other limb, then in absence of proper SCN, there is no merit in levy of penalty
GST -Petitioner undertakes that it shall furnish bank guarantee of amount equal to penalty, so that authority can release vehicle.
Vineet Sethi Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee has been terminated vide letter issued by TBM Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. dated 23.2.2016 due to misconduct of the assessee, wherein it was alleged that assessee has been indulging in activities, which are prejudicial to the interest of the employer company and assessee was promoting and carrying […]
All Odisha Tax Advocates Association Vs Union of India (Orissa High Court) HC held that Considering that the Department has itself acknowledge that there have been technical glitches which have prevented many Assesses from filing their returns and tax audit reports within time, and taking a cue from the aforementioned judgment of the Gujarat High […]
Arati Construction Vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) (Orissa High Court) In the event the petitioner wants to avail the remedy by preferring appeal before the 2nd appellate tribunal then the petitioner is liable to pay 20% balance disputed tax for consideration of its appeal by the 2nd GST appellate tribunal GSTAT). Since the […]
The assessee however submitted that its operations were closed and being no regular employee looking after the matter, the notices issued by the Learned CIT(A) could not be complied.
ITAT held that as per specific provision of Section 28(v) of the Income Tax any interest, salary etc. earned by a partner from a partnership firm is taxable under the head profit and gains of business or profession and there is no question of categorizing it under the head income from other sources.
Final order passed by AO is beyond limitation period provided u/s 144C of Income Tax Act, hence, same is liable to be declared as null & void
Assessee contended that he was not the owner of the property sold and he executed sale deed on behalf of owner Shri Ashok Kumar Garg and, therefore, fasting tax liability on account of short term or long term capital gain on the shoulders of the assessee is not valid.
In tax invoice the amount has been mentioned as Rs.1,97,047.86 whereas in e-Way Bill it has been mentioned as Rs.197047086.00. There is palpable error in e-way bill, which may be construed to be an human error
