Upon further examination of the assessee’s bank statements, the Assessing Officer observed that significant funds were being transferred in and out to various parties.
Vide the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the order of cancellation of registration passed by the Assessing Officer has been upheld and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
On various occasions, this Court has held that if excess stock is found, then proceedings under sections 73/74 of the GST Act should be pressed in service and not proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act, read with rule 120 of the Rules framed under the Act.
The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of retail milk selling. For the relevant AY 2012-13, the assessee did not originally file a return of income, as the total income was below the basic exemption limit under the Act.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment order under section 153A of the Income Tax Act quashed as assessment has been framed not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search.
Madras High Court held that passing of ex-parte order and confirming demand with regard to mismatch of tax liability set aside with direction to give one more opportunity of being heard.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act is liable to be set aside since advance was received was merely recorded as journal entry and no sum was received by the assessee. Thus, appeal allowed.
Bombay High Court held that there is no employer-employee relationship prior to the year 2018 hence industrial court doesn’t have jurisdiction to entertain complaint of unfair labour practice. Thus, writ allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act not justified since the amount introduced by way of unsecured loans proved to be genuine. Accordingly, disallowance of interest deleted.
ITAT Lucknow ruled that additions under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) are unsustainable without a valuation officer’s reference, directing deletion of ₹2.14 crore addition.
