The issue involved in the present appeal is that whether an incentive received in sales tax liability under a Scheme formulated by the State Government would be on capital account, exempt to taxation, or on revenue account, liable for taxation.
Madras High Court held that the export incentive cannot be denied for technical and venial breach of provisions of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [CGST Act]. Accordingly, petition allowed.
Delhi High Court held that since twin conditions required under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] has been satisfied, the application for grant of anticipatory bail allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per previous provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act applicable till 31st March 2013, the assessee was not required to explain the source of money provided by the creditors.
ITAT Amritsar held that addition on protective basis in the hands of assessee not justified as bank account is fraudulently opened in his name without the assessee’s knowledge. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed and addition directed to be deleted.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that rejection of GST appeal without assigning specific reasons for the rejection thereof is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, matter restored back to Appellate Authority for denovo proceedings.
NCLAT Delhi held that delay in filing restoration appeal can be condoned in terms of rule 48 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 since sufficient cause made out. Accordingly, matter restored back to the Adjudicating Authority.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that taxing entire unaccounted cash receipts or on-money receipts not justified as only profit embedded in such receipts is taxable. Accordingly, AO directed to adopt 13% profit margin on real estate business and tax accordingly.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment sustained since documents seized is incriminating in nature. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
Rajasthan High Court held that bail application in GST fake firm case is denied based on seriousness of the offence and also petitioner has attempted to abscond from the custody at the time of consideration of bail application.
