Simplify GST learning with memory techniques. Join live sessions, master CGST sections, and retain knowledge effortlessly. Register now for practical GST mastery!
ITAT Chandigarh held that reassessment order under section 147 of the Income Tax Act cannot be passed without compliance with mandatory requirement of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, order passed u/s. 144 r/w 147 set aside.
ITAT Bangalore remitted the matter back to CIT(A) so that assessee can file necessary documents with regard to disallowance made under section 37 of the Income Tax Act as order was passed by CIT(A) without adjourning the matter as sought by assessee.
Guwahati High Court held that since the Average Annual Financial Turnover cannot be said to be the same as an Income Tax Return, non-submission of income tax returns as required duly disqualifies the petitioner’s tender bid.
Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings against appellant (commercial tax officer) pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty without oral evidence recorded by department in support of charges is totally vitiated and non-est in the eye of law.
Bombay High Court held that the system-generated provisional acknowledgement of the appeal shows that requisite pre-deposit has been made, thus dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with necessary pre-deposit required in Section 107(6) of the CGST Act not justified.
Thereafter, a detailed reply was issued by the petitioner, through its counsel, on 18.08.2021. According to the petitioner, no order was communicated by the first and second respondents after the above mentioned reply was issued.
Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not fix any period of limitation for the filing of a writ petition, it is settled law that a writ petition can be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the writ petition.
CBDT extends the due date for filing income tax returns under section 92E for AY 2024-25 from 30th November 2024 to 15th December 2024.
CBI apprehends CGST Superintendent in Indore for Rs. 15K bribe and EPFO officials in Baddi for Rs. 10 lakh bribe. Investigations and searches ongoing.
Delhi High Court held that cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect merely because the taxpayer has not filed returns for some period not justified. Court directed to cancel registration from date of issuance of SCN.
