Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST, Mumbai Central (CESTAT Mumbai) In this case demand was raised from the input service distributor who has distributed the service credit to their respective factory on the ground that the input service viz. air travel agent service, is not admissible as the service related to business activity […]
The jewellery found in possession of the Assessee and his family is within the normal limits of the jewellery which as per the Board’s Circular not to be seized during the search proceeding of the Income Tax Act. Moreover, in the case of Haroon Mohd. Unni Mumbai vs Department of Income Tax, the Assessing Officer conducting the search suo-moto allowed 250 gms. each to the married ladies of the family as their `Streedhan’.
Penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed only on the natural individual person and not on the artificial person or company because the goods is handled by natural living person and not by an artificial entity.
On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.95,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit from an entry operator completely ignoring the findings given by the Honble Delhi High Court in cases like CIT V. Nova Promoters 342 ITR 169, CIT v. NR Portfolio [2013] 29 com 291 (Delhi), CIT v. N Tarika Properties
These guidelines cover the following broad areas: i. Provisions with respect to Payment of Dividend/interest/redemption/ redemption ii. Provisions with respect to Transfer/Transmission/ Correction of errors etc. iii. Compulsory internal audit of RTAs
M/s Crux Biotech India Private Limited (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh) Issue- The grain based extra neutal alcohol, which slab under somes in GST era. Is this comes under 18% or exempted or any other tax category? Held- Under Section 98(2) Advance Ruling Authority shall not admit the application where the question raised in the application […]
Visakhapatnam Central GST Commissionerate unearths Rs.41 Crores default in payment of GST and other taxes. Rs.18.09 Crores recovered.
The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed a chart depicting various issues arising in all of these appeals and it is seen that most of the issues are repetitive in all the years. Therefore, we are disposing of the appeals on the basis of the issues arising therefrom.
Reduction in number of Returns to One Return per month. No to-and-fro movement of invoice data (like GSTR → GSTR → GSTR → GSTR1A → GSTR-3). Simplicity of Return design: Summary of outwards supplies and inward supplies with annexure of invoices for outward supplies and inward supplies attracting reverse charge. Taxpayer Interface should be simple to use and fill up.
Kind attention is invited to the Board circular No. 37/96-customs dated 3.7.1996 on the above subject. In the said circular, Board had inter-alia clarified that in the case of a vessel brought for ship breaking, the remnant fuel and oil (other than fuel and oil contained in the vessels machinery and engines), ships stores etc. are classifiable separately in their appropriate headings and not in CTH 8908.
