Madras High Court held that section 16(5) of the GST Act should be considered while disallowing Input Tax Credit clam beyond period prescribed under section 16(4) of the GST Act. Thus, directed to re-do assessment.
Madras High Court directed petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount in case of ex-parte order passed. In case the amount is paid, the order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections.
ITAT Chennai held that only peak credit to be considered and no further addition to be made in case of circular transaction since bank account of appellant’s father duly considered for the purpose of calculating peak credit in the hands of assessee.
Without purchases, there would have been no sales. AO’s claim of inflated purchases to reduce tax liability was not substantiated, as all 10 transactions of diamond purchase and sale were documented with relevant details.
Addition of Rs.10 Crore under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as Revenue failed to specify whether the addition was being made alleging concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
RP had excluded assessee from the COC as RP was empowered to decide about the status of a creditor as related party and the findings of RP and AA concluded assessee as related party in terms of provisions of Section 5 (24) of the Code.
The assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2015-16 on 30.11.2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 238,85,10,090/-.
Bombay High Court held that once application under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme [SVLDR Scheme] for payment of duty was accepted, benefit of the scheme gets extended to the redemption fine also. Accordingly, petition allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that provisions of section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) cannot be attracted where no transaction was made by the Corporate Debtor.
Thus, penalty is not warranted on issues where a substantial question of law exists, indicating that the matter is not free from doubt. Accordingly, we quash the penalty order under section 271(1) (c) of the Act.
