PCIT Vs Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the Revenue repeated the submission made before the ITAT viz., that the report of Special Audit should be treated as incriminating evidence. Clearly the report of the Special Auditor, having been commissioned subsequent to the search, and during the assessment proceedings against DSL, […]
Web advertisement expenses and depreciation claimed by assessee in respect of software purchase was not an allowable deduction as the expenses claimed by assessee were bogus and assessee would not have been able to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions by producing relevant and material evidence.
Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court has held that presence of lawyer cannot be allowed at the time of questioning or examination of a person by the officers under the GST provisions. The Court observed that officers under GST law are not police officers and have […]
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.
Section 11(B)(1) of the Act read with the Explanation thereto, clearly requires any claim for rebate to be submitted within one year of export of the goods, where against rebate is claimed. There is no provision which permits relaxation of this stipulated one year time limit.
On 02.05.2019, this Court directed that the respondents shall not, without prior intimation to this Court, proceed to appoint persons to the GST Appellate Tribunal till the next date. The interim order was made absolute till the disposal of the writ petition on 26.07.2019.
In this case two respondents had approached the Tribunal since their applications for selection to the post of Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) were not considered as valid since all their APARs were not received before the stipulated date i.e. 30.08.2018.
Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division & Anr. Vs DDIT (Delhi High Court) Hon’ble high court held that ‘mere cooperation’ between consortium members not results in an AOP. High Court held that where there is an independent / separate scope of work for each member coupled with no profit / loss or risk sharing between the […]
In cases where there is stay of recovery of demand of tax, the Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority. The Tribunal should consider forming a separate list of such cases which should be heard on priority after arranging the cases on the basis of their seniority as well as the quantum involved in the stay.
Aagman Services Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) High Court held that although the failure was on the part of the assessee to enter the GST input credit in the wrong column of the TRAN-1, the error was inadvertent and bona fide – High Court directed the Department to either […]
