Assessee challenged the order of cancellation of registration on the ground of not providing an opportunity of hearing as well as such order was passed without assigning any reason for cancellation of the registration of assessee.
The Court emphasized that any denial of ITC should clearly reference the applicable clause under Section 17(5) to allow the taxpayer a reasonable opportunity to contest the claim.
ITAT, by going through established precedents, held that AO had not recorded any dissatisfaction with assessee’s voluntary disallowance, nor had he provided any basis for invoking Rule 8D
This amount of tax had been deposited by assessee from its own pockets and the GST on the amount of notice pay recovery was deposited by assessee as and when such recovery was made.
Assessee clarified that Form ST-3 was incorrect as some of the invoices inadvertently remained unaccounted for the said period and the correct amount of credit was carried forward in Form TRAN-1.
Section 145(3) couldn’t be invoked without identifying specific defects in the books of accounts and that mere suspicion of increased cash sales was not sufficient to make an addition under Section 68.
Since reasons recorded by AO to form prima facie conclusion that there was likelihood of any gain on account of revenue expenses incurred by assessee was also without any basis in the absence of any fresh tangible material available with the respondent AO as the fact remained that assessee had unrealized gain and unrealized loss which was not claimed and duly reflected in the computation income as assessee had claimed only bank charges expenditure for hedging of foreign currency.
The company had canceled its CST registration effective from March 31, 2014, and argued that it had not imported any goods from other states or countries for incorporation in its works contracts.
Assessee-company was involved in manufacturing tractors, agricultural equipment, and spare parts, also operated a technology center providing IT and engineering services to Deer Associates.
PCIT was not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 in the case of Bank of Maharashtra allowing deduction under Section 36(1)(via) as Assessing Officer’s (AO) assessment order was not erroneous, even if it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
