Jabir Hasan Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax GST (Uttarakhand High Court) It is not disputed that Rule 68 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 provides for notice to the non filers of returns – a notice in form GSTR – 3A shall be issued electronically to a registered person who fails to […]
Shrenuj & Co Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We found as per the provisions of Sec. 14 of IBC-2016 till the conclusion of proceedings under IBC-2016 no suit or proceedings can be continued against the corporate debtor. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no point in proceeding with […]
DCIT Vs Railtel Corporation Of India Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) On perusal of the audit report of the Assessee-company, we observe that the Independent Statutory Auditor has expressed ‘qualified’ opinion on the financial statement and one of the qualifications relates to claim of loss on revaluation of assets in question. The qualification of Auditor has the […]
Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It was noticed by the AO that as per computation of income submitted by the assessee, income from LTCG of Rs.22,76,598/-had been claimed out of the sale of shares of Eco Friendly Food Processing Park Ltd. The AO called upon the assessee to substantiate the claim and […]
Petitioners further submit that they have paid the amount of purchases in question as well as tax on the same not in cash and all transactions were through banks and petitioners are helpless if at some point of time after the transactions were over,
IBC, 2016 does not envisage any mechanism for oversight and monitoring of liquidation process and liquidator by creditors, similar to that provisioned for CIRP through Committee of Creditors
DCIT Vs Medi Sales India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) Issue– Disallowance by the AO by not allowing assessee’s claim holding that the CBDT Circular No. 5/2012 dated 01.08.2012 applies only to pharmaceutical manufacturers and not to distributors like the assessee. Upon careful consideration of material facts, it could be gathered that the assessee merely acts […]
Smt. Ashaba Rajendrasinh Vs CIT (ITAT Rajkot) Ld. CIT(A) while rejecting the claim of the assessee observed that the assessee was mandatorily required to file the return of income for the year under consideration which he has failed to do. In that view of the matter the claim of deduction under section 54 has been […]
Expenditure incurred on existing business incurred in connection with existing business, Updating existing products allowed as revenue expenditure.
In the present case, the impugned orders are non-reasoned orders inasmuch as dept have not considered the submissions of the Petitioner in the stay applications and thus, the discretion vested in department has not been exercised judiciously. Further, neither the Assessing Officer nor the PCIT have considered the three basic principles i.e. the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury while deciding the stay application.
