जीएसटी नियम 86B की मुख्य बातें जानें, बड़े करदाताओं पर इसका प्रभाव और वित्तीय वर्ष 2020-21 के लिए अनुपालन आवश्यकताएँ।
Held that the outstanding being of more than 2 years prior to CIRP commencement date, the relief under Section 43 of the Code would not be available. In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order passed by Ld. NCLT, with liberty aforesaid.
Supreme Court ruling in Commissioner of Central Excise vs Addison & Co. Ltd. focused on refund claims for turnover discounts under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69A r.w.s. cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the statement. There has to be some material corroborating the content of the statements. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that expense incurred by holding company on behalf of subsidiary company which is not in the nature of loan cannot be treated as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax are prescribed income-tax authority for the purpose of issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Allahabad High Court held that invocation of provisions of section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act not justified when consignor with tax invoice and e-way bill claim himself to be the owner of the goods.
ITAT Bangalore held that interest due to delayed payment of custom duty is deductible u/s 37 of the Act as it is an accretion to the main payment and not a penalty and accordingly allowable as deduction.
Held that the cash deposits are made out of the sale proceeds of the assessee and in my opinion the assessee has properly explained the source of the cash deposits along with documentary evidence.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that invocation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act merely taking second opinion unjustified. Further, view taken by AO cannot be set aside or deferred as per provisions of section 263.
