Gujarat High Court held that show cause notice proposing cancellation of GST registration without specifying reasons for cancellation is cryptic and deserved to be quashed.
Jharkhand High Court held that ‘Provision for Warranty Expenses’ is allowable as business expense as large number of sophisticated goods were manufactured in past and if facts established show that defects existing in some of items manufactured and sold then provision for warranty is entitled to deduction.
ITAT Pune held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act unjustified in absence of satisfying twin conditions which is mandatory preceded the invocation of revisionary jurisdiction.
ITAT Delhi held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 is clearly time barred owing to non compliance conditions prescribed on 1st proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, re-assessment proceeding is illegal and without jurisdiction.
Madras High Court held that rejection of rectification application filed under section 161 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 justified as the petitioner has not cooperated in the course of assessment.
Kerala High Court held that provisions of section 64(1)(v) of Income Tax Act clearly states that income accruing or arising in the hands of a minor child will be added to the parent’s total income.
Madras High Court condones the delay of 10 days in filing appeal as the petitioner was unaware of the orders as the orders was sent to the Consultant’s email id.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS is justified as TDS is not deducted and assessee has failed to file any evidence that receipts have declared the amount in their return of income.
ITAT Raipur held that payment towards purchase of beer from the State Government is an exception to the applicability of section 40A(3). However, brushing aside the said objection/ response filed by the assessee had rendered entire mechanism provided u/s 143(1)(a) as redundant and otiose.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as work orders involves both supply of material as well as service, the same is classifiable under works contract service and not under Commercial and Industrial Construction Service.
