Assessee-company was engaged in the business of providing unsecured short-term loans to its customers/borrowers in India via its Digital Application based platform called the ‘CashBean‟.
Since the claim for refund could not be withheld merely because the Department, pursuant to the deposit, issued the SCN and was proposing to demand GST.
Eleven devices were correctly classifiable under CTH 8517 and more particularly under Tariff Entry 8517 62 90. Echo Show 5, Echo Dot 4th Generation and Echo Dot 4th Generation with Clock were held eligible to claim exemptions in accordance with SI. No. 20 of the Notification dated 30 June 2017, as amended vide Notification dated 01 February 2021.
Non-disclosure of information of allegations of sexual harassment would fall clearly within the conspectus of human rights violations, as exempted by the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Assessee was aggrieved by the demand made by the respondent – Corporation for payment of property tax calculated from 17.01.2008 on the ground that the building was completed on that date even though the Occupancy Certificate came to be issued on 25.04.2011.
Since it was mandatory on the part of the respondents to provide opportunity to assessee for personal hearing and without giving any such opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned order came to be passed, which amounted to violation of provision specified under Section 75(4).
Addition made under Section 69 on account of the difference in excess stock of 22 Kt Gold and Polki Jewellery was not justified as the total weight of items of 22KT Gold jewelry and 22KT Gold Polki jewelry was 36,943 gms, and as per the estimated value, the difference was merely 113.50 gms, which was 0.32%.
Assessee had not been able to make out a prima facie case in its favour and had a ‘lot to answer’ in the appeal. Assessee’s plea of financial stringency based on its balance-sheet also inspired no confidence as according to AO, the accounts had not been properly maintained, therefore, assessee’s application for stay of demand during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order was rightly dismissed.
Addition under section 69A on account of actual cash arranged/paid by assessee to HKA was available with the assessee was not justified as “ownership” of money had not been recorded in the books of account and AO had made only presumption that the said cash was ‘available with the assessee’ without bringing on record any material in support thereof.
Explore the legal battle of Shadawal Enterprises vs CIT in ITAT Mumbai. Analysis of unexplained expenses, eviction, and conclusion. Learn about the crucial remand for a fair decision
