Return for AY 2002-03 was filed on 30.10.2002 and an intimation under Section 143(1) was issued on 19.12.2003. A Revised return was filed on 23.03.2004 for which notice u/s 143 (2) can be issued up to 31.03.2005. AO issued notice u/s 148 on 09.07.2004.
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 09.11.2024 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay penalty of Rs.6, 18,656/- as proposed in GST MOV 07 under Section 129(1)A of the CGST Act.
The assessee had adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method and Operating Profit/ Operating Cost [OP/OC] as the Profit Level Indicator for benchmarking the international transactions.
Delhi High Court held that AO has erroneously added value of transaction while calculating income that could possibly have escaped assessment. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back to AO for fresh consideration.
Delhi High Court held that non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is in grave contradiction to section 292BB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, revenue appeal dismissed.
In a recent ruling Madras HC decided the issue in favour of revenue that the essential characteristic of sugarcane in its original form, stands converted after processing, into jaggery and both the commodities are different and distinct from one another.
Calcutta High Court held that rejection of candidature not justified since rejection was without any basis and beyond the terms and conditions of brochure governing selection process initiated by IOC.
The offences u/s. 419, 420, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 are covered under the definition of schedule offences as per Sections 2(1)(x) and 2(1)(y) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Reassessment order was set aside and remitted back to Respondent due to insufficient details in the assessment order on employee’s cash transactions.
Held that in our view, two authorities have examined the facts and have given a finding of fact that the same Cenvat Credit was wrongly availed and passed on to the customer, and this has not been rebutted.
