we find that Learned Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund claims solely on limitation. There is no dispute of the fact that the goods have been exported by the appellant during the period April 2008 to March 2009 by utilizing the services on which service tax was payable for the exported goods.
So far as the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act is concerned, it is noted that since the income of the assessee is exempt under section 10(23C)(vi), therefore, any disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) by the ld. Assessing Officer will only add to the income of the assessee, which otherwise is exempt under section 10(23C) as stated above.
Explore the Kalpesh Patel vs ITO case at ITAT Ahmedabad. Learn about the technical breach, CIT(A) dismissal, and the ITAT decision to grant an opportunity for e-appeal.
On the facts of this case, however, all that the Assessing Officer has indicated is that the assessee had a permanent establishment (PE) in India during the relevant period and that there was presumably some connection between the interest income of the assessee and the existence of the permanent establishment.
Delegation of powers to extend time limit provided under rule 96A(1) of MGST Rules,2017 COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, MAHARASHTRA STATE GST Bhavan, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010, dated the 29th June 2022. Order MAHARASHTRA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017. No. D.C. (A and R)-2/GST/PWR/Sections/2017-18/ADM-8.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (3) of […]
The undisputed fact is that nothing has happened during the year under consideration, the impugned land was converted into stock in trade in earlier assessment year. It is not in dispute that the agreement between the assessee and Unitech is not an agreement for sale and it is not in dispute that there is no consideration.
In the reference 1st cited, M/s. Multisorb Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad, (36AAJCM1498A1ZI) has sought certain clarification by filing an application for Advance Ruling. The Case was posted for personal hearing on 06.04.2022 & 27.04.2022. However, in the reference 5th cited, M/s. Multisorb Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad, have informed that they intended to withdraw their application of Advance Ruling
Explore the CESTAT Mumbai ruling in Raychem RPG Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of GST case on CENVAT credit refund. Detailed analysis of eligibility, rejection reasons, and legal perspective.
The applicant also in a fraudulent manner created records on the GST website and fabricated e-way bills and other documents. Therefore, the applicants do not deserve to be released on bail and the applications deserve to be rejected.
Reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis without any scope of addition, deletion or substitution therein even if supportive material emerges at a later stage.
