The respondents issued a show cause notice u/s. 28 and 124 of the Customs Act alleging a shortage of stock of diamonds imported after taking into account the exports effected, resulting evasion in customs duty to substantial extent.
ITAT Surat held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since AO has not made any independent investigation of fact. Accordingly, ad hoc disallowance @10% upheld to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage.
Tribunal in the case of Yegneswari General Traders vs. ITO has held that based on CBDT circular no. 452 it is clear that Kaccha Arahtias turnover includes only the gross commission and not the sales effected on behalf of their principals.
The present appeal is filed by the revenue. Notably, the respondent is a Custom Broker. It was alleged that certain exports facilitated by the respondent which were made by the exporters, who are allegedly found to be non-existent at their principal place of business.
Bombay High Court held that interest on delayed refund is payable as per section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act) and the period for grant of interest would begin on expiry of 60 days from the date of the shipping bill.
The assessee is an individual, engaged in the business as Kerosene dealers in Rajahmundry. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS “Limited Category” to verify the sources for “Cash deposits during demonetisation period”.
Supreme Court held that a driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act.
Supreme Court held that eligibility criteria, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit.
The petitioner sold his residential property and based on an advise invested the sale proceed in the bonds issued by the Respondent – Power Finance Corporation in order to avail the benefit of capital gain tax exemption.
The assessee has not filed any return of income. As per the information, the reasons were recorded and subsequently the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file any reply.
