Orissa High Court held that petitioner-dealer has right to cross-examine the selling dealers, however, as more than two decades elapsed it might not be practical. Accordingly, assessment would stand completed at the figures disclosed in the return of petitioner-dealer.
Orissa High Court held that Chokad sold to NALCO not being an industrial input. Accordingly, Entry 74 of Part-II of Schedule B of the OVAT Act attracting 4% VAT doesnot apply to the same.
State of Odisha Vs Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (Orissa High Court) The question before the ACST as well as the Tribunal was whether the mosquito repellant ‘Good Knight’ sold by the Opposite Party-Dealer could be classified as ‘insecticide’ under Entry 30 of Part II of Schedule B to the OVAT Act attracting 4% tax or […]
Orissa High Court held that in event petitioners obtain conversion, there will be better chance of recovery by revenue on proceeding with the attachment of land that would then be owned by the estate. However, upon the permission granted under clause (ii) of the proviso in section 281, State will be bound to cause the conversion
Unideep Food Vs T.K. Satapathy (Orissa high court) Orissa High Court held that assessee failed to produce any fresh affidavits proving that it had borrowed unsecured loans from lender farmers as directed by ITAT while remanding the matter. Accordingly, addition under section 68 sustained. Facts- This appeal by the Assessee is directed against an order […]
Issue before CESTAT was regarding justifiability of demand of service tax raised on Assessee disallowing credit availed on input service attributable to quantity of iron ore fines and coal fines cleared by Assessee.
Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd Vs ACIT (Orissa High Court) ITAT held that Appellant-Assessee would be entitled to the benefit of the deduction under Section 80P(4) of the Act since it is a Cooperative Society involved in the business of banking. FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT 1. While admitting the present […]
D. Murali Mohan Patanaik Vs Secretary to Government of Odisha (Orissa High Court) Under Rule 142 (1A) and (2A) of the OGST Rules, it is open to a person against whom a demand is raised to make a ‘partial payment’ and also to ‘file any submissions against the proposed liability’ in Part-B of Form-GST DRC-01A. […]
HC permitted assessee to rectify error of mentioning B2C instead of B2B in Form GSTR-1 at the time of filing of returns, holding that assessee would be prejudiced if it is not allowed to avail benefits of ITC
Orissa High Court held that transfer of jurisdiction from CIT (IT)-1 New Delhi to Bhubaneswar without passing of any order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act transferring jurisdiction is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
