Assessee was also expected to be vigilante in so far as assessment proceedings were concerned. Most of the time assessee went in slow motion and avoid proceedings by not responding to notice(s) of Department, not appearing before AO, not following up with CA/Advocates.
Clause (ba) of sub-section (1) of section 12A was applicable for AY.2018-19 onwards and not for AY.2017-18, assessee-temple trust was entitled to tax exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 . Hence, the order of AO was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and therefore, it was not amenable to revision u/s 263.
Assessee should deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of four (4) weeks for a fresh hearing in matters engaging the discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns.
AO also held that despite issuing notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1), assessee did not comply with those, and AO made additions to the income found in the assessee’s account.
Assessee filed its return of income for the 2018-19 AY declaring a total of ₹12,33,640 and assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issues of “imports and exports”, and various notices were issued and served upon assessee.
Reassessment order was set aside and remitted back to Respondent due to insufficient details in the assessment order on employee’s cash transactions.
Where secured creditor failed to pay the liquidation costs within 90 days after its intention to realize the security interest, the security interest should stand relinquished under Regulation 21A(3) of the Liquidation Regulations, 2016.
Since the reason for the delay seemed genuine, it was condoned. It was held that assessee had not given the explanation as to why assessee did not appear before AO and file the details of source of the deposits within the stipulated time.
RP could not be blamed for having breached the IBC for the CoC to have approved the resolution plan of Parth with requisite majority share which action was taken by the CoC in the exercise of its commercial wisdom.
Assessee argued that AO lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 147/148 as the information derived from the search should had been assessed under Section 153C.
