Madras High Court held that due to non-compliance with notice issued under GST, the petitioner is required to deposit 25% of disputed tax and post deposit of amount, the petitioner will be granted an opportunity of being heard.
NCLT Delhi held that admissible of application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) not justified since invoices covered under section 10A has to be excluded and accordingly amount claimed will be less than threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore.
Madras High Court held that order confirming demand due to mismatch between returns under GST set aside with condition to deposit 25% of disputed tax amount since petitioner neither replied to DRC-01 and neither attended personal hearing.
ITAT Bangalore held that delay of 85 days in filing of appeal before CIT(A) condoned on medical grounds. Accordingly, matter remitted back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.
Madras High Court set aside order passed in respect of excess claim of input tax credit, due to non-appearance on the part of petitioner, with the condition to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount. Directed to grant opportunity of being heard on payment of required amount.
Telangana High Court held that nature of supply of works contract executed in two states is intra-state, accordingly, tax liability shall be discharged individually in each state to the extent of proportion of works executed.
The assessee is a souharda cooperative society duly registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 and is engaged mainly in the business of accepting deposits from members and lending credit facilities to its member.
It is the Petitioner’s grievance that despite the issue of classification having been settled in favour of the Petitioner, the Revenue Department is insisting on goods being released provisionally subject to Petitioner’s furnishing of bonds.
The petitioner has sought to raise an issue with regard to need of submission of TRAN-1 in those cases where details of CTD are submitted in TRAN-3. The argument in this regard cannot be accepted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards undisclosed receipts not sustainable since the amount stand reconciled. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal filed by the assessee allowed.
