Before ITAT, it was submitted that it is impossible for the assessee to mention new registration number in ITR-7 as it was filed on 13.03.2022 and the same was obtained on 04.04.2022 after filing of ITR-7.
Assessee filed return for AY 2013-14 declaring Nil income. The case of the assessee was reopened based on information received from investigation unit that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries and bogus LTCG.
In the case abovementioned ITAT remanded the matter to CIT (A) after observing that delay of 32 days was explained satisfactorily. Assessee was salaried employee and not used to the proceedings of income-tax litigation.
ITAT considered two issues on this aspect. Firstly, whether PCIT rightly exercised its revisional jurisdiction and secondly whether order u/s 263 was passed on merits regarding to the net foreign exchange gain.
During the pendency of assessment proceedings assessee died and notice u/s. 142(1) dated 12.03.2022 has been issued to legal heir/representative of the assessee as per provisions u/s. 159.
Hon’ble Allahabad HC allowed the writ petitions of the respondent, wh0 are doctor, and were terminated on ground of remaining absent from the service for along time. Before that all of the respondents applied for voluntarily retirement scheme (VRS). Order of termination was passed under article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India without holding any disciplinary enquiry. HC further held that clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution was not applicable.
In a recent ruling Delhi HC quashed the order cancelling the registration of CGST after considering the report of GST-Inspector who observed that he firm was in fact functioning at the registered place of business and that sufficient stocks of goods had also been maintained.
Writ petitions are filed challenging the order under Section 129(3) of the UPGST by which the claim of the ownership of the petitioner on the goods detained has been rejected and the same has been passed in the name of the driver of the vehicle.
On appeal before ITAT it was submitted that that the case of assessee has been squarely covered under First Proviso of Section 50C of the Act and thus the sale consideration fixed on date of agreement has to be considered as full valuation of consideration towards transfer of property.
Assessee was working under Notification No.56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 which provides for exemption from the duty of excise to specified goods cleared from industrial units in the State of Jammu & Kashmir to the extent of duty paid in cash by way of a refund mechanism, for a period of ten years from the date of publication of the notification or from the date of commencement of commercial production, whichever is later. During the scrutiny of ER-1 Returns
