The assessee however submitted that its operations were closed and being no regular employee looking after the matter, the notices issued by the Learned CIT(A) could not be complied.
ITAT held that as per specific provision of Section 28(v) of the Income Tax any interest, salary etc. earned by a partner from a partnership firm is taxable under the head profit and gains of business or profession and there is no question of categorizing it under the head income from other sources.
limitation for appeal before GSTAT start only after date on which President, or State President of Tribunal after its constitution under Section 109 of GST enters office.
CESTAT held that unless CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant has not been recovered by way of issue of show cause notice invoking Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the CENVAT Credit available on the books of account cannot be rejected when it is accumulated on account of export of Service.
Diwakar Sharma Vs Anand Sonbhadra (NCLAT Delhi) The issue in this case is as to whether the delay caused in filing of the appeal much beyond the period of 45 days can be condoned by NCLAT? Section 61 of Code deals with the Appeals and Appellate Authority. Section 61(1) of IBC, 2016 provides for a […]
Fact that Assessee had filed his ITR for assessment year 2011-12 within time limit proves that Assessee was aware of process of filing ITR.
Section 70 (1) of GST act only says that the proper officer shall have the power to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in the enquiry and nothing more.
H.C. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST Alwar (CESTAT Delhi) As regards the second submission regarding the certificate dated March 31, 2010 issued by the Regional Manager, RIICO, a perusal of the said certificate would show that it was issued by the Regional Manager RIICO in connection with the commercial plot allotted […]
Dharmendra M. Jani Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) HC held that provisions of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are legal, valid and constitutional, provided that the provisions of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) are confined in their operation to the provisions of IGST Act only and the same cannot […]
By an order dated 08.04.2022 passed in RPG Polymers v. Commissioner of DGST Delhi and Anr. W.P.(C) 5849/2022, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had clarified that such errors, which are apparent on the face of the record, are required to be rectified under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
