The Assessing Officer rejected the reply filed by the appellant by holding that there was no opening and closing stock of goods and all the goods were purchased as sold out during the assessment year. Further, the Trading, Profit and Loss Account disclosed gross loss and had the dealer sold all the goods purchased with a marginal increase in sale price over the purchase price, then the Trading Account would reflect a different picture with a gross profit.
Quantum Coal Energy (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) 1. Canon effect – SCNs being quashed since an officer who did assessment can only do re-assessment. 2. SCN quashed on the basis of Honorable SC Canon Ruling by Madras High Court in WP 10186 of 2014 vide order […]
Cuddalore Municipality Vs Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Madras High Court) Only Support services provided by the government or local authorities that have been excluded from the negative list entry are in the negative list. Otherwise, all service of government and local authorities are not taxable. Support services was defined in Section 65B […]
Russell Credit Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court) The respondent bank entered into an agreement with Hindustan Power Plant Limited, Hosur, for importing and leasing of machinery on rental basis. The master lease agreement was entered into on April 17, 1998. There afterwards, the respondent bank ordered for machinery as per the specification […]
Tvl. Weather Maker Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Madras High Court) The petitioner is engaged in trading of LLOYD Air Conditioners. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had also been doing maintenance contract. For the said service rendered by the petitioner, the petitioner was paid the charges. According to the petitioner, the […]
CIT Vs Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd. (Madras High Court) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the provision for wage arrears of Rs.5.80 crores is an ascertained liability, notwithstanding the fact that the said provision has been accounted on cash […]
If the assessee was otherwise eligible to refund, the refund claim ought not to be denied on the ground of technical glitches and error occurred due to auto-population in Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) software. Nothing can be more unfair.
Kaamdaa Impex Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) Refund not deniable for delay in filing when vital documents seized by DRI: The Madras High Court has held that the application for refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) cannot be rejected based on the limitation period as prescribed under the relevant notification when the vital […]
CIT Vs Shriram Ownership Trust (Madras High Court) As per the Deed of Trust and the Supplemental Deed, the trust is created to benefit the members of owner group and the senior leader group of Shriram Group who are identified as beneficiaries as per the scheme laid out in the Trust Deed. The method of […]
Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Office of GST Council And Ors. (Madras High Court) The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to rectify the mistake in its GSTR-1 return, wherein it has, instead of the GST number of the purchaser in Andhra Pradesh, mentioned the GST number of the purchaser in Uttar Pradesh. […]
