The Assessing Officer (hereafter AO) had made an addition to the income as returned by the respondent under Section 68 of the Act and disallowed the addition made under Section 14A of the Act.
The writ petitioner company is non-deposit taking Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) having license from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for functioning as a Micro Finance Institution (MFI) registered with RBI.
Bombay High Court held that when the petitioner satisfied the requirements of Section 31(3)(d) of the CGST Act denial of input tax credit to the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 16 of the CGST / MGST Act.
Kerala High Court held that order simply proceeded due to non-submission of reply to show cause notice issued under section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act not justified. Accordingly, matter restored back for fresh consideration.
If the authorities decide not to entertain the said request, he shall give detailed reasons as to why the said order is being made. Further proceedings, pursuant to DRC- O7 notice dated 02.01.2024 shall be kept in abeyance.
Respondent was appointed in the kitchen of the petitioner, on acts of theft, misappropriation and fraud, articles of charges were issued. Notably, it is alleged that a Safal brand one litre oil sachet was found hidden on the tank bag of his two wheeler.
Madras High Court quashes refund rejection order for lack of detailed information in SCN, emphasizing the principle of fair hearing under Audi Alteram Partem.
Delhi High Court observed that once the DGFT had proceeded to issue the MEIS scrip to the writ petitioners, they would have been justified in assuming that the issue of classification was neither questioned nor doubted.
Telangana High Court held that the surrender of the rights results in impairment of profit making apparatus of the company and thus amount received under agreement for surrender of rights in capital assets is capital receipt. Accordingly, the appeal by revenue dismissed.
Madras High Court held that petitioner being unaware of initiation of proceedings are directed to deposit 25% of disputed tax and submit objections by treating impugned assessment order as show cause notice.
