On the second issue in the petition, it was stated that in the absence of any finding about petitioners mala fide intention, connivance or wrongful association with the suppliers, no liability can be imposed on it on the principle of vicarious liability on account of fraudulent conduct of the suppliers, who have obtained registration on the basis of fictitious documents.
Commissioner ought not to have delegated his powers of provisional attachment of the immovable property under Section 83 to the Assistant Commissioner, therefore, the order of provisional attachment passed by the Assistant Commissioner was hereby quashed and set aside.
Even if the purchases made from the parties in question are to be treated as bogus, it does not necessarily mean that entire amount should be disallowed and that no benefit should be given to the Respondent-Assessee.
Beauty Wares Vs Assistant Commissioner of CT & CE (Madras High Court) The petitioner has filed the writ petition for a mandamus to permit him to avail credit on the closing stock of input footwear available by rectifying Trans-I filed by them earlier. After considering the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court held in […]
Abbott Healthcare Private Limited Vs Commissioner of State Tax Kerala (Kerala High Court) Authority for Advance Rulings does not have jurisdiction to go beyond issues referred It is the case of the petitioner that as per the business model operated by it in the State of Kerala, it places its diagnostic instruments at the premises […]
Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Gujarat High Court) In the given case, Assessee has filed appeal before ITAT against the order passed by the A.O. u/s 44AD. With respect to that appeal ITAT passed the order and state that “the Assessee is directed to attend the assessment proceedings and justify its claim of […]
Additional income disclosed to the tune of Rs. 12 Crore by assessee during the course of proceedings before the Commission was just and proper and Commission was right in considering the revised offer made by assessee during the course of the proceedings in the nature of spirit of settlement.
When the CBDT circular refers to the amount sought to be evaded, it must be seen and understood in light of the provisions contained in section 276C(1) and in turn must be seen as amount sought to be evaded. 100% of tax sought to be evaded would be the basic compounding fees.
According to the petitioners, Section 50 that provides for levy of interest on belated payments would apply only to payments of tax by cash, belatedly, and would not stand triggered in the case of available ITC, since such ITC represents credit due to an assessee by the Department held as such.
Harekrishna Metallics Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) Section 4[3] of the Karnataka Electricity [Taxation on Consumption] [Amendment] Act, 2013 deals with the payment of tax. In terms of sub-section [3] of Section 4, the incidence of tax is on the consumption. The consumption of electricity relates to every person generating electricity […]
