G. Vasudevan Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) Section 167 of the Companies Act as stated earlier gives instances where the office of a Director shall become vacant. Section 167(1)(a) states that if a Director incurs any disqualification specified in Section 164, then he vacates his seat as a The proviso which is under […]
In case of unabated assessment under section 153A(1)(b), unless such assessment was based upon incriminating documents seized/impounded during the course of search, no addition could be made under section 153A.
A conjoint reading of the Rule 117 and 120A of CGST Rules, 2017clearly reveals that every registered person who has submitted a declaration electronically in FORM G.S.T. T.R.A.N-1 within the period specified in Rule 117 or Rule 118 or Rule 119 or Rule 120 is allowed to revise such declaration once and submit the revised declaration in FORM G.S.T. T.R.A.N-1 electronically on the common portal,
S.D. Traders Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court) It has been argued by the counsel for the Revenue that CIT (A) has not travelled beyond the books of accounts and during appeal it was found that only confirmation was available of five parties and the rest of the creditors were untraceable, hence the addition of the […]
PCIT Vs Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Notice which is issued to the assessee must indicate whether the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the case of the assessee involves concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or both, with clarity. If the notice is issued […]
Refund applications could not be denied merely because the assessment orders were not challenged by assessee or reassessment of the bill of entries was not done
Reassessment could not be reopened on basis of change of opinion in case the matter of dis allowance had already been considered during the original assessment proceedings because the authority could not take advantage of their own wrong if they failed to perform their statutory duty.
It is a fit case where the relief sought for by the petitioner can be granted to the extent of directing the authority to reopen assessment filed by the petitioner through letter, dated 2.5.2017 and deal with the acceptance of the documents, more particularly, ‘C’ form and ‘II’ form declarations and then pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Goods belonging to the petitioner, were detained for an alleged discrepancy noticed in respect of the E-way bill raised in connection with invoice. Discrepancy noticed is with regard to the value of the commodity.It is also the case of the detaining authority that the commodity in question was undervalued by the vendor by offering excessive discounts to the purchaser. Reasons shown, that are impugned in this writ petition, are not sufficient for the purposes of detaining the goods in terms of Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act.
Section 147 of the IT Act does not allow the reassessment of an income merely because of the fact that the assessing officer has a change of opinion with regard to the interpretation of law differently on the facts that were well within his knowledge even at the time of assessment.
