Madras High Court directs rectification for IGST claimed under the wrong head in GSTR-3B due to clerical error, allowing the taxpayer to resubmit the petition.
Though the petitioner has sought for multiple reliefs, it is clear that they have confined their relief for refund of the amount of Rs.2.50 crores collected, while keeping open the other contentions in light of pending adjudication initiated by issuance of show cause notice.
The Applicant is a Personal Guarantor to M/s Indian Clothing League Private Limited (the Corporate Debtor) for the cash credit facilities to the tune of Rs. 20 crore and Rs. 15 crore from the Punjab National Bank and Allahabad Bank, respectively.
Revision order was remanded back for re-examination of assessee qualification as venture capital as where the amount had been received from the Venture Capitalists, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) were not applicable.
Once the State Government had extended the benefit under the particular scheme, the same could not be withdrawn by the Electricity Department basing on the audit report. In absence of any evidence of theft being committed by assessee, the benefit of Intensive Policy could not be withdrawn.
Further, revenue also contested that whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in treating the excise duty refund of Rs 1,63,15,661/- as capital receipt, which were earlier treated as revenue receipt, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
ITAT Mumbai held that capital gain arising out of sale of shares not taxable in the hands of foreign company since holding is less than 10% hence Article 14(4) of DTAA between India and Spain cannot be applied.
Kerala High Court held that TDS never deducted and entire amount of TDS was paid along with penal interest hence initiation of prosecution under section 276B of the Income Tax Act unjustified. Accordingly, all the proceedings quashed.
The ITAT Mumbai remands the case of Ashok Ghelabhai Patel for fresh examination after the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence for claimed expenses.
ITAT Mumbai quashes penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Vijay Jewellers, citing estimated additions for bogus purchases. No concealment or inaccurate details found.
