Assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Inverters & Batteries and had its factory premises in Himachal Pradesh. For running its operations, it had availed various facilities from financial creditors and also with SBI.
It was held that assessee to provide concrete evidence establishing the genuineness of the cash deposits in accordance with CBDT Circular wherein the various instructions had been issued by CBDT dated 21.2.2017, 3.3.2017, 15.11.2017 & 9.8.2019.
Fees collected by the agricultural market committee for its services were not tax and was generally defined to be a charge for a special service rendered to individuals by some Governmental agency.
AO passed TDS order issued for non–deduction of TDS and interest thereon u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) was beyond the four-year limit and the same was barred by limitation under section 201(1) was invalid.
Reassessment notice issued to assessee by AO was quashed due to non-compliance with the statutory requirement of providing a minimum of seven days for the taxpayer to furnish a reply under Section 148A(b).
Assessee had filed Form No.10AB under section 80G(5). Although, assessee-trust was registered on 01.09.2013, it received provisional approval on 16.09.2022 under first proviso to section 80F (5) (iv), valid until AY 2025-26.
During the course of investigation of the FIR in respect of theft of Coal and illegal excavation being done by the criminal elements in the leasehold area of ECL, a large number of vehicles/ equipment’s used in the illegal coal mining and its transportation were seized.
Section 37 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 ( MVAT Act ) and Section 33 of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (“MPVAT Act”) are not pari materia with Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ( GVAT Act ).
Reassessment order was quashed on cash deposits as AO did not possess any credible information to form a belief that income had escaped assessment and there was non-application of mind for reopening the matter.
In the instant case, the classification of imported materials used in the manufacture of brake pads arose for consideration was whether these materials should be classified under CTH 3824 as declared by assessee or under CTH 6813 as argued by Revenue.
