Since AO had taken recourse to the provisions of section 142(2A) only with a view to extend the period of limitation by virtue of clause (iv) of Explanation 1 to section 153(9) for completion of assessment, without the conditions being satisfied in section 142(2A), therefore, the assessment framed by AO under section 143(3) was barred by limitation and invalid.
Addition on account of investment made from undisclosed sources was deleted as as all transactions were made through banking channels and AO had made the addition in question on assumption and presumption basis.
Tvl. Sree Karumariamman Granites Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Writ petition was not maintainable when the appeal remedy was available and there was nothing to demonstrate that it was not efficacious. Held: Assessee-partnership firm was carrying on business in quarrying and marketing granites. The Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited (TAMIN), which was a Government company […]
India Awake For Transparency Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: Assessment of qualifications, experience, etc. as eligibility conditions of a candidate was purely the domain of the Executive and the Selection Committees. Assessee had been unable to make out a case, which would lead to a conclusion that the Authority of NCLAT Technical […]
PLG Impex Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: The ‘coated paper’, as certified by the competent authority designated under the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), did not conform to the description corresponding to sub-heading 8410.13 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The denial of the benefit of the concessional rate of duty […]
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as mere making of a claim which was not sustainable in law, by itself, would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of assessee.
‘Common Parlance Test, ‘Marketability Test; ‘Popular Meaning Test’ were tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on the proper classification of tariff entry. Therefore, ‘manufactured sand’ would certainly fall under the entry ‘sand’, as it stood during the relevant period. The Notification dated 31.03.2015 was only clarificatory and that would not disentitle assessee to claim the reduced rate of tax at 5/5.5% under Entry 83 of the Third Schedule of the KVAT Act.
Giving advance to the employees as well as vendors were essential and wholly and exclusively linked to the business of the assessee. Since AO had not examined the claim of deduction u/s 37(1) r.w.s. 28, it was deemed appropriate to restore the issue to the files of AO for de novo consideration.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as AO was not certain that for which limb he wanted to initiate penalty proceedings, that is, for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. AO initiated penalty proceedings on one footing and concluded on other footing, therefore, the basis of levy of penalty itself was not correct.
Since no discrepancy had been found with regard to the suppliers of assessee, the refund claim by assessee could not be denied to be processed on the ground that verification of the suppliers of assessee’s supplier was pending as the provisions of the CGST Act and the IGST Act did not mandate refund claimant to verify the genuineness of the suppliers of its supplier, inasmuch as enough safeguards/mechanism were provided under the Act to recover the taxes, if not paid or wrong credit was availed by assessee’s supplier or supplier’s supplier.
