After taking cognisance of the reply of the assessee, PCIT held that AO has not applied his mind in respect of the amended provisions of Section 14A and, therefore, the Assessment Order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and is erroneous.
ITAT Chandigarh held that passing of an ex-parte order by CIT(A) without considering the merits of the case is unjustified. Accordingly, matter restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
Patna High Court held that petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit due to non-constitution of the Tribunal accordingly, petitioner must be extended statutory benefit of stay u/s. 112(9) of Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act.
The assessee is in the wholesale distribution of sale of premium motorcycles manufactured by Ducati, Thailand to the dealers in India and in distribution of spare parts, accessories, clothing and merchandise imported from its Ducati group entities to the dealers in India.
CESTAT Mumbai held that allegation of mis-declaration and duty demand thereon not sustained as department doesn’t challenged transaction value. Further, importer duly mentioned value of all the imported goods in the invoice. Hence, duty demand not sustained.
Jammu Kashmir High Court held that the time limit for refund of GST u/s. 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 will be determined from the date the original application came to be filed by the petitioner concern and not from the date of follow-up application.
Gauhati High Court set aside the order as passed without affording due opportunity and against the principles of natural justice since the notice under CGST Act, 2017 was issued to incorrect address.
Madras High Court held that Powder Coating products like yokes, links and tubes amounts to works contract and hence the same is liable to tax under section 15(1) of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007.
ITAT Mumbai held that hardship compensation is not a revenue receipt but constitute a capital receipt. Accordingly, AO directed to delete addition made towards the same.
Delhi High Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect. Accordingly, GST registration cancelled from the date on which it the registration was suspended.
