Assessee submitted that these invoices were genuine, shared with Exclusive Motors, and disclosed to investigators. They argued that Bentley had no role in the customs declarations filed in India and could not be blamed for the importer’s omissions.
Cash deposits made by assessee during the demonetization period were explained as being sourced from earlier withdrawals and household savings, and deleted the addition of ₹10,46,500 made under section 69A.
Under Section 153C, the six-year limitation period for issuing a notice to a person other than the one searched begins from the date on which the documents or materials were received by AO, not from the date of the search or notice.
Revenue argued that since assessee was an “eligible assessee” under section 144C(15), AO rightly passed the order and the final order was valid within the time limit of section 153(4). On appeal.
Cancellation of GST registration due to assessee’s failure to file returns on time would be revoked in case of genuine medical reasons and assessee’s willingness to pay tax and interest without adjusting from unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC).
Writ petition filed in connection with the misuse of a Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN) was dismissed as assessee could not claim to be completely innocent for sharing OTP with an accountant which was allegedly misused to create multiple fake firms.
Mere involvement in a flagged scrip, in absence of concrete evidence of manipulation or unaccounted funds, could not justify taxing bonafide transactions. Therefore, the additions under sections 68 and 69C were unsustainable.
When there were 650 noticees, obviously, the generation of DRC-07 for each of the noticees could take some reasonable time so long as the order had been communicated through e-mail or post or other modes as contained in Section 169 of the CGST Act.
In the instant case, the dispute pertained to promoter and inter-corporate loans advanced to the respondent-corporate debtor Palchan Bhang Power Private Limited (PBPPL) between 2011 and 2014 for the development of the Palchan Bhang Hydro Electric Project.
Customs department must reconsider an exporter’s application for renewal of a self-sealing licence when earlier violations had been settled and the exporter had not been given a chance to explain their case as there was clear violation of principles of natural justice.
