PCIT Vs Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the Revenue repeated the submission made before the ITAT viz., that the report of Special Audit should be treated as incriminating evidence. Clearly the report of the Special Auditor, having been commissioned subsequent to the search, and during the assessment proceedings against DSL, […]
K.B Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner (GST Appellate Authority, Himachal Pradesh) In the view of above discussions I am of considerate opinion that the penalty imposed in the instant case under section 129 was unwarranted. GST Council vide circular No 64/38/2018 dated 14th September, 2018 and the HP circular no. 12-25/2018-19-EXN-GST-(575)-6009-6026 dtd 13th March 2019 valid […]
In case a consignment of goods is accompanied with an invoice or any other specified document and also an e-way bill, proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act may not be initiated in case of minor mistakes like error in one or two digits/characters of the vehicle number.
In response to Appeal Filed by Central Government against the Gujarat High Court Judgment in the case of AAP And Co. Vs Union of India, Hon’ble Supreme Court stays the Gujarat HC judgement which states that GSTR-3B is not a return under Section 39 of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
Web advertisement expenses and depreciation claimed by assessee in respect of software purchase was not an allowable deduction as the expenses claimed by assessee were bogus and assessee would not have been able to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions by producing relevant and material evidence.
If that is the case, the deduction claimed by the assessee should have been allowed under the correct provision. Merely because the assessee has claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act, by treating the flat as a commercial property, assessee’s claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act cannot be disallowed if the assessee fulfills the conditions of section 54 of the Act.
MFAR Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Return is the basis on which the computation of tax liability has to be made including the input tax credit in terms of Section 10[3] and Section 10[4] of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It is not in dispute that no […]
The Respondent has computed the interim GST benefit by estimating taxes which were a cost to him in the pre-GST regime. We find that it is a methodology based on estimated or assumed figures which is not accurate and we agree with the methodology adopted by the DGAP while determining profiteering.
Shri N. Ramaswamy Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) A bare reading of Section 2(47)(vi) of the Act shows that the agreement or arrangement which has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of immovable property, has to be considered as transfer in relation to capital asset. In this case, there was a perpetual lease agreement […]
Bharat Raj Punj Vs Central Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate (Rajasthan High Court) HC held that Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence specially the fact that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of wrong availment of input tax credit of more than Rs. 40.53 Crores […]
