Bank cannot claim any amount from the customer when a transaction is shown to be a ‘disputed transaction’. The bank can recover from the customers only when it can unequivocally prove that the customer was responsible for such transaction, independently through the civil court. The RBI guidelines is a clear mandate to exonerate a customer in such ‘disputed transaction’.
The moot question, according to learned counsel for writ petitioner is, the transporter cannot be proceeded against even if the allegations against the owner of the goods i.e., dealer under TNGST Act, are true.
Looking to the alleged huge tax evasion by the applicant and the contention of the learned counsel of the respondent and keeping in view that the investigation is going on and apprehensions of applicant tampering with the evidence can not be ruled out. So, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. Hence, the bail application of the applicant is rejected.
Whether the Tribunal is correct in not confirming the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) made by the Assessing Officer when the assessee did not comply with requirements of Sub-Section 7 of Section 194C read with Rule 31A?.
Assessee could not establish any ‘reasonable cause’ with respect of acceptance of the deposits in cash, exceeding the permissible limit, imposition of the penalty was re-affirmed.
Since firm envisaged payment to a outgoing partner on the basis that the partner would have rendered service during his tenure but could not enjoy the fruits thereof on account of the fact that the work having remained incomplete, the concerned client had not been billed for the work already done, therefore, payment to the partner would amount to diversion of income at source by overriding title. Thus, payment made to the legal heir of deceased partner would be an admissible expenditure for firm.
Pr. CIT Vs Pat Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Bogus loss from Client Code Modification (CCM):However, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s explanation and discarded the Revenue’s theory that profit of the assessee’s company were passed on to the clients. It was also noticed that the Revenue has not contended that the client code […]
Since during the period the property was legally not occupiable and not occupied because the building in which property was situated was not given Occupancy Certificate (OC), therefore, issue for charging of tax on notional rental basis and the question of interpretation of section 23(1)(a) did not arise at all.
Unitac Energy Solution Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ass. STO (Kerala High Court) Kerala High Court has held that detention claiming the consignee was a return defaulter for the last five months, is not a valid ground to justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act 2017. The High Court quashed the detention notice observing that […]
Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The main contention of the Petitioner is of violation of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner contends that since the hearing was only by three members and the impugned order is by four members, it is in breach of principles of natural justice. The […]
