Assessee-company was traded in electric security equipment systems and filed its income return declaring NIL income after setting off unabsorbed depreciation.
Demand order of GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) was quashed on failure by the authorities to properly consider over 200 pages of supporting documents and the reply submitted by the taxpayer.
Writ petition filed by assessee challenging a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order on alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) was rejected holding that the dispute did not fall under Section 16(4) and that the proper remedy lay in filing an appeal.
AO was directed to consider the original return while deciding the case involving disallowance of excess deductions and house property loss claimed in revised returns for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 as the revised return had been filed by the assessee based on the wrong guidance of the tax advisors and had been brought to the notice of the AO.
AO pointed out that the 118% gain from a single scrip in 15-16 months had no commercial justification, and Karma ISP was identified as a penny stock used to create fake exempt gains.
Assessee was entitled to refund of ₹7.98 crore as once a protest was lodged, it was upon the customs authorities to dispose of it by a speaking, appealable order, failing which, the protest could not be deemed to have lapsed.
Revenue submitted that the order was issued in order to meet statutory limitation deadlines. During the hearing, both assessee and the authority agreed that assessee had an alternate remedy under Section 246A, along with the option to seek condonation of delay under Section 249(3).
Once it was held that there was an independent and separate sale of the HDPE bags in which the cement was sold, there was no question of levying any sales tax at the same rate as that levied on cement.
No recovery of outstanding GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand could be made once a taxpayer deposited the statutory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act and filed an undertaking to approach the Appellate Tribunal when it become functional.
Sale proceeds of vintage car was taxable unless assessee proved that the car was used as a personal asset. Tribunal had rightly reversed the order passed by CIT (A), which had applied irrelevant considerations of wealth tax returns and non-claiming of depreciation in respect of the car by assessee.
