Madras HC held that amount paid by petitioner on reverse charge basis during transition to GST regime is allowed as recredit as Input Tax Credit in Electronic Credit Ledger. Accordingly, petition allowed.
Delhi High Court held that no provision under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 [DTVSV Act] empowers Designated Authority to reopen concluded assessment after issuance of final certificate u/s. 5(1) of the DTVSV Act.
ITAT Ranchi directed CIT(A) to reconsider the matter of disallowance due to late deposit of Employees Contribution u/s 36(1) (va) of the Income Tax Act in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services.
‘Gupt Daan’,a secret gift regarding unexplained cash in a Religious Trust locker was pertaining to RNB Temple Trust and was already brought on record to the extent of Rs.1,79,00,000/- which was evident from the Balance Sheet submitted.
Delhi High Court held that review of order passed by the appellate authority, by the Commissioner, by exercising powers vested by section 107(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act is unsustainable n law. Accordingly, writ petition allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition under section 68 towards cash credits not justified since evidences clearly demonstrates that cash deposits and credit entries are through agricultural income. Accordingly, addition deleted and appeal allowed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that benefit of exemption from additional duty of customs i.e. benefit of notification no. 43/2002-Cus dated 19.04.2002 available on import of High Speed Diesel even if they are working under DEEC Scheme.
Held that no opportunity was allowed to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) before passing this ex-parte order. Thus, the order passed by the CIT(A) is in gross violation to the principle of natural justice.
Supreme Court overturns Karnataka High Court’s order that set aside a resolution plan under CIRP citing delayed judicial intervention and adherence to IBC protocol.
ITAT Surat held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act deleted since appellant has satisfactorily explained the nature and source of the credit. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition deleted.
