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.
Rupal Jain Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) We notice that the assessee has not only discharged the primary onus by filing confirmation and the IT returns and balance sheet of the lenders, the assessee is also stated to have paid interest in most of the cases and deducted TDS thereon. Noticiably, the lenders are the family […]
Madras High Court ruling on interest levies under TNVAT, TNGST, and CST Acts, emphasizing timely payment of admitted taxes to avoid interest after four years.
Explore the implications of Town Essential Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (ITAT Bangalore) case. Learn about fair market value, valuation methods, and the significance of the ITAT ruling.
Explore the Madhav Kumar Swarup vs. ACIT case where the attribution of credit card expenditure is contested. Detailed analysis and conclusions provided.
Application is liable to be filed under section 97 for obtaining the advance ruling in advance not during the pendency of any issue before the authority.
