In the matter abovementioned ITAT referred to the AO to examine the allowability of the claim u/s 11 of the Act in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision of ACIT Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, (2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC).
Allahabad HC rules co-owner consent unnecessary for GST registration if ownership proof, like an electricity bill, is in the owner’s name. Case details inside.
Delhi High Court held that inordinate delay of 9 years in prosecuting the case is not justified since the same is much beyond the time limit prescribed under section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, delay not condoned and hearing notice quashed.
Kerala HC rules that GST orders under Section 73 must have digital or manual signatures to be valid, quashing impugned orders in the case of Fortune Service.
Assessment completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144 for AY 2010-11 after making of addition of Rs. 36,092/- on account of wrong claim of deduction u/s. 24 and Rs. 23,43,705/- was also disallowed on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, Rs. 24,22,305/- on account of unaccounted receipts from Shiva Phrama Ltd. and Rs. 2,06,883/- on account of unaccounted receipts received from various companies.
ICAI announces disciplinary actions for professional misconduct against five Chartered Accountants, including suspensions and fines, effective January 2025.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act quashed since enquiry already conducted by AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that under Customs Act interest on sanctioned refund is admissible after three months from the date of application and not from date of Commissioner (A) order.
DGFT revises timelines in Para 6.06 of Handbook of Procedures (FTP 2023) for tea and spices imports to align with Chapter 4 provisions, easing compliance.
Madras High Court held that passing of order of detention in Form GST MOV-09 beyond time limit stipulated under section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act unjustified. Accordingly, detention held to be invalid.
