No person should accept any loan or deposit of a sum of Rs.20,000/- or more otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. Where a person advance cash more than Rs.20,000/- to another person, restriction on cash advances was, in fact, on the taker and not on the person who made an advance.
Learn how Avaada Ventures Private Limited challenged an invalid Section 153A order in ITAT Mumbai. Analysis of the case, judgment, and conclusion provided.
Assessee-individual was carrying out various types of business including property development, liquor shop, medicine shop and rental income. The return was selected for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1).
Co-operative society received/earned interest on deposits with the co-operative bank was eligible for claim of deduction under section 80(2)(d).
Corporation availing services of assessee to render computer education to persons belonging to economically weaker section as regards which the Corporation had made the payment of monies to assessee would be amenable to service tax, that is to say, it was not exempted from service tax.
Mere suppression of facts was not enough and there must be a deliberate and willful attempt on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty.
Electricity distribution companies were not entitled to collect gst from their customers and charges for metering equipment, testing fee for meter, labour charges from customers for shifting of meters, charges for bills and application for releasing connection of electricity were all integral part of services of distribution of electricity.
Gold and gold items seized from assessee were to be released after the orders-in-original had been passed in favour of assessees, on furnishing securities other than bank guarantees and execution of the bonds to the satisfaction of proper customs authority.
The impugned notices and orders were issued by the respondents/revenue admittedly subsequent to the public announcement under Section 15 of the Code regarding CIRP process pertaining to assessee and it was only subsequent to approval of the Resolution Plan of the Tribunal that Revenue issued the impugned Assessment Order and Demand Notice.
The order passed by CESTAT was without jurisdiction, the Revenue, thus, was right in observing that the refund order sanctioned in favour of the Firm pursuant to the order of CESTAT, was required to be reviewed.
