Uttarakhand GST Appellate authority set aside penalty order under section 129 for clerical error in e way bill. In the E way bill Inward supply was selected instead of outward supply. Joint Commissioner (Appeal), State Tax, Rudrapur, in light of Circular No.- 64/38/2018; Dated 14-09-2018, quashed the order of Assitant commissioner demanding integrated tax and Penalty of Rs 1,29,915 each under section 129 and instead levied a general penalty of Rs 1,000/- on the Appellant.
In re GVS Projects Private Limited (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh) 1. Whether APSPDCL & APEPDCL is a Government authority/ Government Entity or not? The Applicant Contractees i.e. APSPDCL and AEPDCL are Government Companies i.e. wholly owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. When a copy of Audited Annual Accounts of M/s APSPDCL and APEPDCL are […]
In re CMS Info Systems Ltd (GST AAAR Maharashtra) The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling hold that Input Tax credit against the GST paid on purchase and fabrication of the motor vehicle used for carrying cash and bullion is available to the appellant. Read AAR Order : GST applicable on Supply of motor vehicles as […]
AAAR hold that Input Tax Credit against the GST paid on the purchase, and fabrication of the motor vehicles, used for carrying cash and bullions, is available to Appellant.
Looking to the alleged huge tax evasion by the applicant and the contention of the learned counsel of the respondent and keeping in view that the investigation is going on and apprehensions of applicant tampering with the evidence can not be ruled out. So, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. Hence, the bail application of the applicant is rejected.
In this case assessee was asked to explain penalty on one count, whereas Penalty has been levied on other count. This itself called for quashing of penalty order passed by AO for all years under consideration. Therefore, penalty order was quashed and set aside.
Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The issue for consideration before us is whether in such cases, the legal evidence produced by the assessee has to guide our decision in the matter or the general observations based on statements, probabilities, human behavior and discovery of the modus operandi adopted in earning alleged bogus […]
Mere mentioning of the new address in the return of income without specifically intimating the Assessing Officer with respect to change of address and without getting the PAN database changed, is not enough and sufficient.
Whether the Tribunal is correct in not confirming the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) made by the Assessing Officer when the assessee did not comply with requirements of Sub-Section 7 of Section 194C read with Rule 31A?.
Assessee could not establish any ‘reasonable cause’ with respect of acceptance of the deposits in cash, exceeding the permissible limit, imposition of the penalty was re-affirmed.
