ITAT Kolkata held that treating purchases from concern as bogus merely because for another year purchases from the said concern were treated by AO as bogus is not justified since in relevant year AO duly treated the purchases as genuine.
The appellant are that the assessee being a public charitable Trust engaged in running an educational institution in the name of Batanagar Institute of Engineering, management and Science.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that delay of three years in approaching Court without explaining sufficient cause for the delay is not justifiable. Also held that mere filing of representation is not sufficient cause to explain the delay. Thus, petition dismissed.
AO observed that there was substantial undisclosed income, as the assessee admitted to unaccounted business income amounting to Rs.3,50,04,000/- during the search proceedings but did not file a return for the assessment year 2014-15.
It is submitted that the specific request of the petitioner for furnishing the entirety of the statements made as also the seized material, has not been accepted in its entirety and only the portions of statements were made available which has prejudiced the petitioner.
Delhi High Court held that as AO didn’t assume jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, recourse to section 147 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment proceedings justified. Accordingly, appeal by revenue allowed.
Karnataka High Court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer since non-response to notice issued under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act by the petitioner was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause.
The said SCN was adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order by confirming the proposals made in the SCN. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellants have filed these appeals before the Tribunal.
Madras High Court held that the coinsurance premium and re-insurance commission would not be considered as supply and hence not liable to pay GST. Thus, amount deposited by petitioners are entitled for refund.
The petitioner, aggrieved by the Assessment Order filed an appeal before the Commissioner’s Office and it is submitted that the appeal is presently pending but no effective order has been passed thereon.
