Ms Anusura Vs Mohit A Gupta (Gujarat High Court) Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that the action on the part of the concerned authorities could be termed as absolutely high-handed and arbitrary. The facts of this case speak for themselves. […]
Notice notice under section 148 being jurisdictional notice, issued to a dead person and legal representative not having waived the requirement of notice under section 148 and not having submitted to the jurisdiction of AO pursuant to impugned notice, provisions of section 292B would not get attracted and hence, notice under section 148 had to be treated as invalid.
It is now a settled position as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the various Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal that the process of generation of electricity is akin to manufacture of an article or thing, the assessee in the instant case satisfy the requirement that it is engaged in the business of manufacture or production of an article or thing.
Lapse of unutilised input tax credit on account of inverted duty rate structure unlawful as held by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shabnam Petrofils Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India. Legal Provisions Section 54(3) of CGST Act, 2017 provides for refund of unutilised input tax credit in following 2 circumstances Zero rated […]
Pr. CIT Vs Harsha Engineerings Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) Section 14A of the Act can be invoked only if the assessee seeks to square off the expenditure against the income which does not form the part of the total income under the Act and in such circumstances, section 14A of the Act could not have […]
The CGST Act itself provides for the lapsing of the ITC at Sections 17(4) and 18(4) respectively of the CGST Thus, where the legislature wanted the ITC to lapse, it has been expressly provided for in the Act itself. No such express provision has been made in Section 54(3) of the CGST Act.
The issue under consideration is if Assessee remained absent on more than one occasions and appeal decided on merits then whether it will be called as Ex-parte order?
Where non-resident agents appointed by assessee for procuring export orders did not have permanent establishment in India and their activities as commission agents are being carried out outside India, merely because a portion of the sale to the overseas purchasers took place in India, would not make assessee liable to deduct tax at source under section 195.
Once an agreement to sell is executed in favour of some person, the said person gets a right to get the property transferred in his favour and, consequently, some right of the vendor is extinguished. Therefore, the agreement to sell which had been executed on 13th August 2010 was considered as the date on which the property, i.e. the agricultural land, had been transferred instead of 3rd July 2012 on which the sale-deed came to be executed and assessee was entitled to claim the benefit of section 54F as it had invested in purchase of residential house on 22nd April 2010 which was within the prescribed time limit.
Notice under section 143(2) was issued prior to the filing of the return of income which was invalid and the assessment order passed would also be invalid.
