It should be kept in mind that the offences under Section 132(1)(b)(c)& (i) of the OGST Act are punishable with a maximum punishment of five years Rigorous Imprisonment. Therefore, investigation ought to be completed within 60 days as per Section 167 Cr.P.C. Of course, Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. permits the investigating agency to keep the investigation open. B
The assessee has not proved that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act does not have any application on the said payment of Rs.21,27,846. Hence, the A.O. was correctly disallowed the expenditure by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
Considering the serious financial constraints of the assessee due to which it had failed to discharge its admitted self-assessment tax liability at the time of filing its return of income, and for a period thereafter, no penalty under Sec. 221(1) r.w.s 140A(3) could have even otherwise be imposed on it.
Statement under section 132(4) alone cannot be considered as incriminating material unless any corroborating incriminating material is found during the course of search from the premises of the assessee.
Rajputana Stainless Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Facts- A notice alleging clandestine manufacture and clearance of finished goods during the period from 2012-13 to 2015-16 based on various statements recorded under section 14 of Central Excise Act. It included the statement of buyers and some of those buyers denied of having received […]
Akshay N Patel Vs Reserve Bank of India (Supreme Court of India) Facts- The appellant has challenged the constitutionality of Clause 2(iii) of the 2020 MTT (Merchanting Trade Transactions) Guidelines by alleging a violation of his rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21. The main issue involved is RBI’s restriction to prohibit MTTs in PPE […]
While considering the application u/s 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record.
The petitioners are alleged to have floated bogus firms and by entering into bogus transactions with bigger firms, they were getting huge amounts deposited in the bank accounts of the bogus firms so floated and were eventually facilitating the big firms to save on GST in a fraudulent manner
Blue River Capital India Advisory Services LLP Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts- Refund claim filed by the appellant is rejected on various grounds like- -For the refund claim period no ST-3 return was filed. -Services allegedly exported by the appellant were not used outside India. -Some input tax credit invoices […]
Celestial Aviation Trading 64 Limited Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Facts- The petitioner entered into an Aircraft Specified Lease Agreement with Air India Limited for lease of one aircraft for a period of 12 years. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner made applications under Section 197 of the Act for ‘Nil‟ rate […]
