Assessee is engaged in the business of Manufacturing and Trading of Mill Board Paper, Cone, S.S. Rolled Patta and commission agent. The assessee company filed return at income of Rs. 2,77,330/-.
The matter arises out of three “Advance Authorisation Licenses” which allow to import “Walnut Inshell of Chandler Variety” at nil rate of duty with the condition that the Petitioner would fulfil the export obligations.
Petitioner alleged that appeal order no. 3623 dated 21.10.2023 mentioned in intimation dated 30.11.2024 was never communicated to petitioner as mandate of Rule 121 in Odisha VAT.
These writ petitions are filed by distributors of LPG appointed by the 1st respondent herein challenging orders imposing penalty, appellate orders, as also the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2018 under which the penalty is imposed.
Gujarat High Court rules GST is applicable on concession fees for duty-free shops, allowing input tax credit refunds due to zero-rated supply classification.
Assessment proceedings against the petitioner were started and completed on 23.01.2018 and on the same day penalty proceedings were initiated. Appeal against the assessment order got dismissed on 14.11.2022.
Kerala High Court held that the time limit for furnishing the return for the month of September is to be treated as 30th November in each financial year with effect from 01.07.2017. Thus, claim for Input Tax Credit to be processed accordingly.
Sujit Biswas Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The assessee is a proprietor of Baba Lokenath Sahal Sabji Bhandar and total turnover disclosed by the assessee during the instant financial year were ₹32,00,500/- against the purchases of ₹15,52,770/-. Assessee filed his return at total income at ₹2,92,240/-. The assessee engaged in the business of purchase and sale […]
Bombay High Court held that assessment order passed after expiry of period of limitation as prescribed under section 153 of the Income Tax Act read with first proviso below explanation 1 is barred by limitation. Accordingly, petition succeeds.
ITAT Nagpur held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act without providing an opportunity to assessee to cross-examine the person whose statement was relied upon is untenable in law and hence liable to be deleted.
