Hence, the matter need to be remanded to Commissioner (A) to decide the issue on merit. At this stage, the issue was pending for more than 10 years, therefore, a timeframe was necessary for disposal of the appeal.
No notice GST DRC-01A was served upon the assessee hence he could not make a reply. Petitioner became aware only after when order was uploaded on the tab “view additional notices and orders”.
In the matter abovementioned writ petition, challenging the impugned order creating demand u/s 73 GST, after observing that reminder and order was uploaded on ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ Tab instead of ‘Due Notices and orders’.
In a recent ruling Hon’ble Madras HC allowed writ petition by observing that petitioner that consolidated amount was related to invoice bills which are less than Rs. 1 Lakh and hence are exempted.
Telangana High Court held that sole financial creditor cannot entertain request of One Time Settlement once corporate debtor enters in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Accordingly, petition dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that uploading of information by the investigation wing of the Income Tax department would not be a substitute for recording of a satisfaction note by the AO of searched person for handing over material to AO of person other than searched person.
Delhi High Court held that in order to avoid improper service to parties and to avoid ex-parte proceedings, it is incumbent that service of notices ought to be effected even through email and on the common portal, in addition to the traditional methods as per Section 153.
Delhi High Court held that co-accused permitted to apply separately for compounding of offences committed by a Company or HUF. Accordingly, matter remitted back to decide afresh in light of CBDT circular dated 17.10.2024.
It was argued on behalf of assessee that PCIT is wrong in concluding that return filed u/s 44AD did not envisage the maintenance of any Books of Accounts. Section 68 can be invoked only if there is any entry in the Books of Accounts.
ITAT restores gratuity addition matter to CIT(A) in Vaddadi Madhusudana Rao’s appeal despite 1-day delay in filing the appeal.
