Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, as per which, a presumption is raised in favour of the complainant that the notice had, in fact, been delivered.
There is no dispute that petitioners deposited taxes, however, the mistake which petitioners have committed is that they deposited tax under minor head ‘200’ instead of ‘400’.
Basudev Mittal Vs Union of India (Chhattisgarh High Court) It is alleged that the applicant has illegally availed Input Tax Credit of more than Rs.5,00,00,000/- by purchasing the goods from several suspicious and fake suppliers whose registration had already been cancelled. During search, it also came to the forefront that more than 700 vehicles, against […]
Assistant Commissioner issued show cause notices after passing of final order by Tribunal, with respect to subject matter of refund, was wholly against provisions of law
Markand Induprasad Bhatt Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) However, we note that the power of rectification u/s 154 of the Act can be exercised only if there is a mistake apparent from the record which is one of the pre-condition meaning thereby the mistake should be apparent, obvious from the record. In other words, in order […]
Royal Rubber Works Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Undisputedly, the addition based on which the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was on account of sundry creditors. While deciding the quantum appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal has deleted the major part of the addition, accepting assessee’s submission that such amount was […]
ITAT held that Reasonable time limit for issue of notice u/s 201(1)/201(1A) is 4 years and Assessee cannot be taxed for non-deduction of TDS U/s. 195 if non-resident discharged obligation with respect to payment of capital gains tax
ITAT Held that, since assessee ceased to be in existence as on the date when Ld. AO passed the impugned order of assessment, assessment so framed is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Closer of capital gain account without NOC of AO, the broad provisions and compliance of law surpass the mere default in not taking prior permission of ITO before closer of account
Jinesh Associates Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Proviso to Section 29(2) of Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act specifically observes that there shall be no cancellation of GST registration without giving an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, during the course of proceedings relating to cancellation of registration, there is a statutory mandate […]
