HC declined to interfere in a matter and dismissed the petition of the assessee seeking rectification of the Form GSTR-1 for the period of January 2018 to March 2018, on the ground that the statute has provided a period of limitation for seeking rectification and held that the Court cannot condone the limitation period provided for rectification of GSTR-1 Form
Assessment or re-assessment made in pursuance to Section 153A of the IT Act, is not a de novo assessment and therefore, it was not open to the Appellant to claim and be allowed deduction or allowance of expenditure which it had not claimed in the original assessment proceedings which in the case of the Appellant stood completed.
The Hon’ble High Court, Madras noted that the summon were issued to the Petitioner instead of the counsel for the Petitioner (in whose name vakalatnama was given). Thus, there is a possibility that the Petitioner would not have informed about the summons to their counsel regarding the personal hearing and the same resulted in passing of the Impugned order without hearing the learned counsel of the Petitioner.
AAR, Maharashtra has held that a liaison office of the DCCI to be an ‘intermediary’ which is providing services. Further held that, the liaison office cannot be considered as non-profit making organization, and the activities undertaken are covered under the scope of ‘Commerce’, ‘Business’ and ‘Supply’.
HC has granted stay on Recovery Order passed by the Revenue Department, denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the Company due to mis-match in two return forms i.e. Form GSTR-2A and Form GSTR-3B, on a condition of deposit of 5% of the demand by the Company.
Taxpayer filed the GST return within the time granted by Karnataka High Court and the return filed was a return as contemplated under section 62 (2) which is to be construed to be return filed within the time. If that were to be so, the return filed in terms of the High court order was a return in terms of section 62(2) and the best judgment assessment orders passed under section 62(1) would stand withdrawn.
The Petitioner filed petition against the order dated May 24, 2017 (Order) by the passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal denying the input tax credit (ITC) in respect of capital goods and imposing penalty stating that penal provisions are mandatory.
SC dismisses Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order which had held that marketing, advertising, sponsorship and promotional expenses/payments made by the assessee (importer) for promotion of brand is not includible in assessable of imported sports goods and thus, Rule 10(1)(e) of Customs (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (Customs Valuation Rules) is not invokable.
Even after amendment in Section 16(4) of CGST Act, the ITC on Debit Notes should be seen w.r.t. the FY for which corresponding invoices were issued instead of FY in which Debit Notes were issued.
The Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in Swatiben Anilbhai Shah v. DCIT [Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1513, 1514 and 1515/Ahd/2019 decided on January 29, 2021] held that where assessee purchased shares and recorded them in investment portfolio and it was justified that the intention of the assessee was to purchase the shares as capital asset, then income […]
