Hon’ble HC held that an entity which falls within the definition of the micro/small enterprise will be treated as a ‘supplier’ under Section 2(n) of the MSMED Act even if it has not filed a Memorandum as required under Section 8(1) of the MSMED Act.
Question raised in the present writ petition is whether as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (C.E. Act, for short) the petitioner-assessee on filing of second appeal before the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) is required to make an additional pre-deposit of 10% of the duty and penalty in dispute, over and above 7.5% pre-deposit made for filing of first appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
It is submitted that in the above facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner has resigned from the directorship of the company in question, the petitioner would not incur a disqualification under Section 164 of the Companies Act. Consequently, the disqualification of the petitioner as notified in the lists dated 6thSeptember, 2017 and 12th September, 2017 by the respondent no.1 was incorrect and illegal.
1. While allowing deduction under section 10B, the deduction is to be allowed to eligible undertaking, even the income being in negative. 2. Cutting and polishing of precious and semi precious stones constitutes manufacturing as contemplated in section 10B, 3. No fresh fact or fresh material which formed the reasons to believe for reopening of the assessment except the order passed by the AO, there being no other reason given by the AO for re-opening the assessment, notice issued under section 148 of the Act quashed.
Jindal Dyechem Industries (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India ((Delhi High Court) It is apparent from these facts that the imports which are the subject matter of the present writ petition were in fact made after the introduction of GST Regime. The petitioner is the beneficiary of an advance license issued on 17.07.2017. At that point […]
Assessee clearly failed to specify as to how she derived undisclosed income and under what head it fell in (rent, capital gains, professional or business income out of money lending source of the income, etc. Unless such facts were mentioned with some specificity, it could not be said that conditions in section 271AAA(2) were satisfied by the assessee.
Third issue highlighted by the petitioner is that Central and State Acts permit rectification of mistakes. However, GSTN portal does not permit rectification of a return already filed. Rectification is to be made in the subsequent return. Nevertheless authorities are issuing notices to the assessees whenever rectification is made, treating rectification as a discrepancy between GSTR1 and GSTR3B. A large number of assessees are facing this problem.
ITA Nos.405/2005 and 406/2005 have been filed by an individual, Arjun Malhotra impugning common order dated 29th January, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) deciding ITA Nos.1433/Del/2002 and 1434/Del/2002 relating to Assessment Years (AY, for short) 1998-99 and 1999-2000
Counsel for Revenue wishes to bring on record copies of Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST dated 03.04.2018 setting up an IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism in form of a Committee.
Yum! Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd. Vs. Dy. DIT (Delhi High Court) In the present case, having started off on a wrong note that the original assessment was scrutinized and an order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the assessing officer proceeded to put up the note to the DIT as is evident from […]
