Since there was no material available before AO that assessee had paid anything more than what was mentioned in the sale deed, therefore, no addition was warranted in the instant case by invoking the provisions of section 69.
Addition by AO under section 41(1) as liability of ‘Trade Payables’ written off was not justified as the balance-sheets filed by assessee were neither signed by the Auditor nor by the Director and, therefore, the same were not reliable and assessee had failed to produce any confirmation to the effect that the assessee received payment from M/s. O as interest free unsecured loan.
Hence, the High Court of Kerala quashed the reassessment proceedings under section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST), 1961 since the provision does not prescribe any time limit and no additional material to undertake the fast track assessment was presented by the department.
Service of notice upon a dead person under section 142(1) would not authorise him to assume jurisdiction to pass assessment order on the L/Rs. also.
In the present case, the Court by its reasoned order had refused to grant an injunction on the basis that the alleged infringing mark is descriptive in nature and does not tarnish the goodwill of the Plaintiff. Also the same is being used as a label by the Defendant and not as a trademark per se.
Chhattisgarh High Court observed that, under valuation of a goods in the invoice cannot be a ground for detention of the goods and vehicle for a proceeding to be drawn under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (
In re Ion Trading India Private Limited (GST AAAR Uttar Pradesh) Question :- Whether amount recovered from the employees towards car parking charge payable to Shantiniketan Properties Private Limited (building authorities), would be deemed as “Supply of service” by the applicant to its employees? Answer:- The question is answered in affirmative. Question ii. – If […]
Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Provisions of 2(22)(e) were not applicable since the payment was mere reimbursement of expenditure. Ld. CIT(A) proceeded on wrong footing that the same would be personal expenditure and hence, disallowable completely overlooking the fact that the said expenditure has never been claimed by the assessee anywhere while computing […]
Under valuation of a good in the invoice could not be a ground for detention of the goods and vehicle for a proceeding to be drawn under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017.
Tenzing Match Works Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) Even trial production machineries kept ready for use etc., were considered to be used for the purpose of business to qualify for depreciation. In ‘CIT -Vs- Geo Tech Construction 244 ITR 452 (Kerala)’ , the machinery which was purchased by the assess from Pondicherry was yet to […]
