Addition made by AO was justified with regard to introduction of bogus share capital in the form of accommodation entries as the transactions done were clearly sham with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus nature.
Ms Napin Impex Private Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of DGST (Delhi High Court) The brief facts are that the petitioner is a registered dealer, which trades inter alia in PVC raisins and other food items such as beverages. The petitioner alleges that its premises were visited by the Revenue authorities on 29.08.2018 when the DGST officials directed […]
Rajesh Jindal Vs Commissioner of Central Tax GST Delhi (West) (Delhi High Court) Counsel for the respondent says that statements have been recorded inter alia of one Sh. Deepak Taneja and Sh. Ravinder Tyagi, both of whom have stated, giving specifics, that the petitioner has threatened them since they were made dummy directors by the […]
Tvl. R K Motors Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) It is also not in dispute that the bill is addressed only to the writ petitioner’s principal office at Sivakasi; delivery alone is to be made at Virudhunagar. I am of the view that even if by mistake, a wrong instruction had been given to the driver of the vehicle to head towards Sivakasi. Still it would not really matter. The only question that the respondent ought to have posed is […]
The Gujarat HC conclusively held that the Respondent ought to have directed the sanctioning Authority to refund the duty of the amount in cash instead of credit in the CENVAT account and for the foregoing reasons, the Petition was allowed to succeed.
Stove Kraft Pvt. Limited Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) Petitioner is a dealer. The goods and vehicle have been detained; in the e-way bill generated, petitioner has shown three invoices. Noting that separate e-way bill will have to be generated to each of the invoices, goods have been detained. It is to […]
Merely because non-interest bearing advance was given to third parties, the same would not justify that the test of ‘commercial expediency’ was not satisfied by assessee. Hence, disallowance of proportionate interest made by AO was not justified, as the same was given for business purposes.
Making of incorrect claim in law would not by itself amount to concealment of income or giving inaccurate particulars of income. Since revenue had not been able to show even remotely that there was any concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income, appeal was to be dismissed.
DLF Hotel Holding Case: Interest On Borrowed Funds Allowed As Deduction Under Section 36(1)(iii) Even If Some Of Funds Financed To Subsidiary Companies
On behalf of the respondents, reliance has been placed upon the provisions of section 89 of the CGST Act to submit that the same permits recovery of the dues of the private company from its directors in case such amount cannot be recovered from the company.
