ITAT Hyderabad held that rejection of books during assessment proceedings does not retrospectively nullify the obligation to comply with section 44AB of the Income Tax Act within the prescribed time. Accordingly, penalty under section 271B upheld.
Allahabad High Court held that proceedings rightly initiated under section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act since on verification of GST portal it is found that transactions are not shown which concludes the transactions are bogus.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed a GST registration cancellation notice, ruling that the absence of a mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN) invalidates the notice.
Madras High Court held that verbatim reproduction of contents of show cause notice without independent reasoning for arriving at conclusion results into violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, matter remanded back to file of first respondent for fresh consideration.
Gujarat High Court permitted the petitioner to rectify Form GSTR-1 due to inadvertently showing the turnover of sister concern in Form GSTR-1 resulting into difference in outward supplies declared in Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B.
ITAT Delhi held that non-resident company assessee was not having any control over employees seconded by it to Indian entity and hence there cannot be any fixed place Permanent Establishment [PE] of the assessee in India. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
The AO completed the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 02.03.2023. In the said reassessment order, the AO treated the income received from Kanchipuram Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
ITAT Pune held that excess sugarcane price paid to the members and sale of sugarcane at concessional rate needs fresh consideration and accordingly, the matter is restored back to the file of AO.
ITAT Pune held that ex-parte order sustaining addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act on account of non-compliance on the part of the assessee not justified since relevant notice and order were served to old e-mail of the assessee. Accordingly, matter restored back to the file of AO.
CESTAT Mumbai held that double payment of amount of customs duty is only a deposit with government and hence question of applying limitation under section 27 of the Customs Act would not arise. Accordingly, order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
