It cannot be a universal rule that once an appeal from the order of the Tribunal has been admitted in the quantum proceedings by High Court, then, ipso facto the issue is a debatable issue warranting deletion of penalty by the Tribunal.
Reopening of assessment of A.Y. 2005-06 after expiry of four years without obtaining approval of an officer of the rank of Joint Commissioner was bad in law and even if such approval had been granted, by the officer superior i.e., the DIT, it would not cure the defect.
R.S. Infra-Transmission Ltd Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) The contention of Mr. R.B. Mathur is that Rule 18 will take care of the situation. However, while considering the matter, we have to look into the matter whether the benefit envisaged under the Rajasthan VAT Act especially under sub-Section (1) shall be allowed only […]
The revisionist called in question the order dated 01.06.2009 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, by which the Tribunal allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent assessee and set aside the order of the Appellate authority and also modified the order passed by the Assessing officer and set aside the tax imposed and declared the dealer (respondent)exempted from tax
We have perused the relevant documents, namely, Invoice, Goods receipt, E-way Bills etc., which are enclosed as Annexures to the writ petition and found that the E-way bill under the UPGST Act has been downloaded by the petitioner, much before the detention and seizure of the goods and the vehicle, disclosing all the necessary informations.
CIT Vs M/s. Baby Marine Exports (Kerala High Court) If the regular assessment was upheld finally and there was a reassessment and re-computation of total income, the assessee would have been liable to pay advance tax to that extent also, on which, an interest would be levied under Section 234B(3). It is been held that […]
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned order dated 28th July, 2017 to the extent it allows the Revenue’s application for rectification, is without jurisdiction. This is so as it amounts to review of its order dated 6th June, 2016 which had been passed in an appeal for Assessment Year 2004 05 after due consideration of the very issue. In any case, the issue raised is a debatable issue. Therefore, outside the scope of rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act.
On account of a mistake committed by the petitioner during 2009 in providing the PAN number of another firm for the purpose of obtaining registration under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (the Act), the request of the petitioner for registration under the GST statutes were delayed and were granted only with effect from 12.08.2017.
A division bench of the Delhi HC comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Chander Shekhar denied the dis allowance made in case of old creditors under section 40(1) of the Income Tax Act.
That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 1010.2017 (Annex.13) passed by the Respondent No.4, impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.3.2005 (Annex.9) and impugned order – in – Appeal dated. 12.8.2015 (Annex.10) may kindly be quashed and set aside
