Gauhati High Court held that notification no.56/2023-CE dated 28.12.2023 is not in consonance with the provisions of 168(A) of the Central GST Act, 2017. Hence, all consequential actions so taken on the basis of such notification would also fail.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance made by the CPC u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act on the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Income Tax Act is beyond the scope of adjustment u/s. 143(1) accordingly the adjustment is deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 68 on account of unexplained cash credit, being bogus unsecured loan, and u/s. 69C on account of unexplained expenditure, being bogus interest claimed, unjustified as repayment of loans in subsequent year accepted.
ITAT Bangalore held that imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act unwarranted as reasonable cause shown for accepting the cash on account of sale of immovable property.
It is Petitioner’s case that a show cause notice dated 7th December 2023 without any details was issued calling upon Petitioner to attend the office of Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 28th March 2024 u/s. 23 of the MVAT Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that contribution under National Pension System (NPS) belatedly, however, before filing of return is allowable as deduction u/s. 43B(b) of the Income Tax Act as there is no due date prescribed for payment under NPS.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that passing of revisionary order by PCIT u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act without giving proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee is liable to be set aside.
Instruction No. 03/2024-GST outlines procedures for CGST audits, emphasizing uniformity and reducing litigation through adherence to established guidelines.
MCA levied penalties under Section 62(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, for a delay in passing a special resolution. The company and directors were fined for the violation.
Registrar of Companies penalizes Paramount Dye Tec Limited for not disclosing trading activity in its MOA, violating Section 4(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013.
