On receipt of application for revocation of cancellation of registration, the proper officer shall pay a visit to the POB of the taxpayer in order to ensure that the taxpayer is in genuine business from his premises. This will ensure that the revocation is not done in the ease of non-existent / non-genuine tax payer.
In re Vaighai Agro Products Limited (GST AAR Tamil Nadu) As per Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, any application for advance ruling involving questions already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of the applicant under any of the provisions of this Act shall not be admitted. In the applicant case, […]
DCIT Vs Quippo Oil And Gas Infrastructure Ltd (ITAT Delhi) The assessee-company is engaged in providing plants and machinery, mobile drilling rigs, equipment and other related services to oil and gas industry. The assessee during the year has entered into contract with Jubilant Oil and Gas Pvt. Ltd. On perusal of the terms of the […]
Ali Cotton Mill Vs Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST) (Andhra Pradesh High Court) As the Rule 108 of APGST Rules, 2017 permits filing of appeal electronically, the petitioner had, first attempted to file the appeal electronically but the same was not received by the Department Website due to some glitches and therefore, the petitioner filed the […]
Sikander Singh Jamuwal Vs Vinay Talwar (NCLAT Delhi) What is very much clear from the submissions made by the Ld counsel for the parties and the documents available on record that the Resolution Plan fails to consider the payment of provident fund dues as computed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner vide its order dated […]
CIT Vs Manish Build Well Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) Conditions prescribed in Rule 46A must be shown to exist before additional evidence is admitted and every procedural requirement mentioned in the Rule has to be strictly complied with so that the Rule is meaningfully exercised and not exercised in a routine or cursory manner. […]
Alapan Bandyopadhyay Vs Union Of India And Anr (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the Petitioner strenuously argued that under Rule 6(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, it is the statutory right and option of the Petitioner, being a retired person, to file an O.A. before the Kolkata Bench, as he was […]
Malla Foundation Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Bangalore) The CIT(E) has refused to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act primarily for the reason that the assessee has not produced the necessary proof as regards the activities of the assessee-trust and in absence of the same it is not possible to verify the genuineness of the […]
ITAT held that, the said amendment to Section 39(1)(va) and Section 43B effected by Finance Act 2021 is having prospective effect. Since, the said amendment is having prospective effect and not being retrospective one the same cannot be applied to the present case.
Mattapalli Ram Kumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Vishakhapatanam) It is undisputed fact that the assessee had received compensation of Rs.1,33,88,000/- under compulsory acquisition of land under RFCTLARR Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has heavily relied on the Circular 36/2015 dated 25.10.2016 issued by the CBDT, wherein, it was mentioned that income tax shall not […]
