Petitioner is working as Asstt. Director in the Commercial Taxes Department. He submitted representation to Prinicipal Secratory Commercial Tax Department seeking for promotion to the post of Deputy Director Commercial Tax Department. He further prays for the correction his qualification in the service book.
It is the case of the assessee that it has not been provided with the opportunity of being heard before the Ld. AO/CPC, Bangalore while passing an order under Section 154/153(1) and additions were made due to inadvertent mistake of the tax auditor in both the employer and employee’s contributions. Actual due date of the salary should have been verified by the CPC/A.O.
In a recent ruling ITAT Delhi relied upon the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Subros Educational Society, (2018) 96 taxmann.com 652 (SC) in deciding that the set off of accumulated deficit is allowable.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT referred to the AO to examine the allowability of the claim u/s 11 of the Act in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision of ACIT Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, (2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC).
Assessment completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144 for AY 2010-11 after making of addition of Rs. 36,092/- on account of wrong claim of deduction u/s. 24 and Rs. 23,43,705/- was also disallowed on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, Rs. 24,22,305/- on account of unaccounted receipts from Shiva Phrama Ltd. and Rs. 2,06,883/- on account of unaccounted receipts received from various companies.
Both the revenue authorities have accepted the books of accounts, book results could not be disturbed once it is admitted that cash sales are recorded in books and forming part of turnover of the business.
In a recent ruling Hon’ble Kerala HC disposed off the writ petition by remanded back the matter to competent authority in the light of the circulars passsed by GST counsel mentioned at para 101 of the judgment M. Trade Links Vs. Union of India.
CIT (A) erred in treating the loan of Rs.90.52 crores u/s 69A/69B when the show cause notice of enhancement was with reference to section 69 and there were neither any investments which were not recorded in the books of account nor is there any such finding by the CIT(A).
In the matter abovementioned Hon’ble Madras HC denied to grant any relief to the petitioner by holding that ITAT is the ultimate fact finding body and findings of facts of the Tribunal cannot be interfered under Section 260A of IT Act.
In a recent ruling Hon’ble Madras HC considered that there is mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and petitioner is ready to pay 25 % of the total tax in dispute. HC granted on more opportunity to the petitioner after complying the directions.
