Delhi High Court held that fine imposed for non-furnishing of financial documents on directors of the company is justifiable, however, compounding fine amount reduced from Rs. 1.50 Lakhs to Rs. 1 Lakhs due to severe financial difficulty faced by the directors.
Assessee-trust registered under Sections 12A and 80G had filed its return of income for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 declaring nil income. The return was processed under Section 143(1), and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS.
Depreciation claim under Section 32 was allowable on actual cost of assets which the assessee paid to the erstwhile partners for taking over from a dissolved firm. It did not matter if the partners were from the same family, as the Act did not make any such distinction.
Assessee claimed deduction under section 54F on the basis that the long-term capital gain earned from the transfer of tenancy/possessory rights was invested for the purchase of a residential flat.
Madras High Court directed petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed tax amount and granted time to furnish reply to the GST show cause notice. Accordingly, writ petition disposed of.
Delhi High Court held that in absence of transfer of title or sale of property, no incidence of tax can be invoked. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 on account of sale not justifiable in absence of any transfer. Hence, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Madras High Court held that Input Tax Credit which is barred by limitation in terms of section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is available in case the same is within period prescribed in terms of section 16(5) of the Act.
Respondent/Assessee is a limited company. Original assessment order was passed on 31.08.2006. The assessment was reopened and was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 30.12.2009 qua computation of capital gains regarding assessee’s sale of its land and building.
CESTAT Mumbai held that imposition of penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act not justified in absence of any dummy export or any criminal intent involving evasion of duty. Accordingly, provisions are not applicable where export goods have actually been exported.
Telangana High Court held that non-granting of at least seven days for furnishing reply is against the Standard Operating Procedure [SOP] dated 03.08.2022 issued by department. Accordingly, notice and order thereof is not sustainable.
