Madras High Court held that due to non-compliance against notice issued in DRC-01A, the petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and petitioner will be granted opportunity of being heard on payment of the amount.
Madras High Court held that due to non-compliance with notice issued under GST, the petitioner is required to deposit 25% of disputed tax and post deposit of amount, the petitioner will be granted an opportunity of being heard.
ITAT order was based on the fact that assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribing companies and the genuineness of the transactions.
Madras High Court held that order confirming demand due to mismatch between returns under GST set aside with condition to deposit 25% of disputed tax amount since petitioner neither replied to DRC-01 and neither attended personal hearing.
Madras High Court set aside order passed in respect of excess claim of input tax credit, due to non-appearance on the part of petitioner, with the condition to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount. Directed to grant opportunity of being heard on payment of required amount.
Telangana High Court held that nature of supply of works contract executed in two states is intra-state, accordingly, tax liability shall be discharged individually in each state to the extent of proportion of works executed.
It is the Petitioner’s grievance that despite the issue of classification having been settled in favour of the Petitioner, the Revenue Department is insisting on goods being released provisionally subject to Petitioner’s furnishing of bonds.
The petitioner has sought to raise an issue with regard to need of submission of TRAN-1 in those cases where details of CTD are submitted in TRAN-3. The argument in this regard cannot be accepted.
Madras High Court granted stay on payment of 10% of tax demand since the respondent/ department failed to furnish proof against alleged demand. Accordingly, order set aside and stay granted.
Delhi High Court held that in case of investment in two residential properties, exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act is available in respect of only one of the two residential properties. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
