Chhattisgarh High Court observed that, under valuation of a goods in the invoice cannot be a ground for detention of the goods and vehicle for a proceeding to be drawn under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (
Under valuation of a good in the invoice could not be a ground for detention of the goods and vehicle for a proceeding to be drawn under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017.
Tenzing Match Works Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) Even trial production machineries kept ready for use etc., were considered to be used for the purpose of business to qualify for depreciation. In ‘CIT -Vs- Geo Tech Construction 244 ITR 452 (Kerala)’ , the machinery which was purchased by the assess from Pondicherry was yet to […]
In the instant case, HC notice that not only was there no mistake apparent from the record but in the garb of the Misc. Application, petitioner had sought for review of the final order passed by the Tribunal and for rehearing of the appeal which is not permissible in law. In our view, Writ Petition does not appear to be bonafide.
Considering the wide phraseology employed, it is obvious that the business of the appellant assessee includes buying and selling even agricultural properties. Therefore, the findings recorded by the AO and the ITAT that the income derived by the Assessee on purchase and sale of the agricultural land will be assessed as income from business, were sustained.
Agrawal Colour Advance Photo System Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Another (Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur) The issue under consideration is whether while providing photography service whether the use of the paper upon which an image is printed using certain consumables and chemicals, being incidental to the provision of service, amount to sale […]
ICAI had no power to conduct any disciplinary proceedings without written allegations and in the absence of any information as prescribed under Rules 7 of the Rules 2007 the prima facie opinion derived by the authority lacked jurisdiction and had no foundation.
The assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. The fact that the source of the source is suspect and that the creditor had no regular source of income to justify the advancement of the credit to the assessee does not mean that an addition can be made in the hands of the assessee
PCIT Vs ITAT (Bombay High Court) From a careful reading of the provision, it is seen that Tribunal is vested with the power to rectify any mistake apparent from the record to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of Section 254 at any time within six months from the end of the […]
Bhavya Construction Co Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Section 254(1): The basic grievance of the Appellant is that the impugned order of the Tribunal has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice. This for two reasons, one the decisions relied upon by the Tribunal of its own (not cited at the bar) in […]
