ITAT came to a finding that Motilal Oswal Investments Advisory Pvt. Ltd. was not a concern which could be included in the list of comparable companies. We do not think that these findings of fact are in any way perverse or vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record which, in turn, would give rise to any substantial question of law.
Commissioner of Central Tax, GST Delhi (West) Vs Rajesh Jindal (CGST Delhi) As already noted, not only there are serious allegations against the accused/ respondent of his having made fictitious sales of value of more than Rs. 200 crores and having consequently caused loss to the government of the GST evasion / wrongful availment of input […]
Raghuleela Builders Pvt Ltd Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) (Bombay High Court) While disposing of these Petitions with the above clarifications, we may note that these Petitions have been filed challenging a somewhat curious and unforeseen development. We do not know in what circumstances the Chairman flew down to Mumbai and invited the members […]
A rectification within a month is not necessary but that as many rectifications, as are necessary, for the dealers to correct the mistakes discerned later not merely on account of its errors but on account of the errors, in receipt of inputs or from the buyers’ transactions would also be admissible.
Shafi Khan Khokhar Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Bombay High Court) High Court upholds jurisdiction of Mumbai CGST Commissionerate even in case where parallel proceedings were commenced in Jaipur Facts: During the period of dispute, the assessee, an individual, was subjected to enquiry proceedings under CGST Act, initiated by the Commissionerate at Mumbai. He […]
Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd appeal: The income tax department cannot presume something to have happened five years ago, it did not mean that assessee indulged in similar activity in the previous year
Kerala High Court rules in favor of Anoop Raj, Director of a private limited company, challenging revenue recovery proceedings under Section 26C of Kerala GST Act.
Kerala High Court ruling on Income Tax return deadline. Assessees facing difficulties due to floods can apply for extension under Section 119(2)(b). Waiver for interest/penalty for late payment also allowed.
Bombay High Court has held that it was within the discretion of the assessee whether to utilize Cenvat credit at one of its unit or distribute it amongst other units providing output The High Court however dismissed appeal observing that the entire exercise was revenue neutral as distribution of Cenvat credit to various units would result in lesser service tax being paid by them.
M/s Etiam Emedia Limited Vs ITO (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Conclusion: Reopening of assessment was justified as there was specific information available with the authorities that assessee was a dummy concern used to route unaccounted money by way of bogus share application money. It was not a case of mere suspicion, it was a case, wherein […]
