Assessee is an individual filed his Return of Income for AY 2013-14 at Rs.10,98,540/-. During the year consideration, assessee along with other co-owners sold two immovable properties for a consideration of Rs.1,20,60,000/- and Rs.1,85,40,000/-.
During the scrutiny of GST monthly returns for AY 2018-19, it was found that there existed a difference between the ITC available as per GSTR-2A and ITC availed as per GSTR-3B to the tune of Rs.10,22,809/- of IGST.
In the case abovementioned ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the matter to CIT (A) after considering that assessee could not file evidence before CIT (A) in lack of service of notices.
In a recent ruling Hon’ble Kerala HC have held that refund due to the petitioner for the year 2016-17 could not have been adjusted against the demand for 2015-16 when there was a stay on account of the provisions contained in Section 60 (1A) of the KVAT Act.
Return for AY 2002-03 was filed on 30.10.2002 and an intimation under Section 143(1) was issued on 19.12.2003. A Revised return was filed on 23.03.2004 for which notice u/s 143 (2) can be issued up to 31.03.2005. AO issued notice u/s 148 on 09.07.2004.
In a recent ruling Madras HC decided the issue in favour of revenue that the essential characteristic of sugarcane in its original form, stands converted after processing, into jaggery and both the commodities are different and distinct from one another.
In a recent ruling ITAT Mumbai have held that genuineness of sale and purchase of share through stock exchange platform, can not be doubted if AO failed to establish link between assesssee and report of investigation wing.
ITAT passed ex-parte order in absence of assessee and held that any assessment, whether it be first round or otherwise framed under section 153A without getting approval under section 153D of Act, is not sustainable in law.
These regulations do not specify any date by which the employee’s contribution/ subscription to the PF is to be deposited in the individual employee’s account under the Calcutta Port Trust Non-Contributory Provident Fund.
In a recent ruling ITAT Mumbai dismissed appeal filed by the revenue and confirmed order of the CIT (A) in treating the income/compensation received from the transaction in agricultural land as business income instead of income from other sources as treated by the AO.
