Clix Capital Services (P.) Ltd. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that further to the previous directions, the Form GSTR-3B filed manually has since been processed and the notional demand in respect of Rs.16.80 crores has been reversed. It is submitted that in these circumstances, […]
CIT Vs. Ram Kishan Dass (Supreme Court) Facts of the case Revenue is in appeal against Delhi High Court order holding that proviso to section 142(2C) authorizing AO to extend the time limit suo moto w.e.f. 01-04-2008 is prospective in nature and therefore AO can extend time for special audit on application of assessee and not […]
Ashok Kumar Bhatia Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Section 129 relates to ‘any person’ who transports any goods or stores any goods while they are “in transit” in contravention of the provisions of this Act or Rules made thereunder, all such goods and conveyance used as a means of transport for carrying the […]
: Where there existed reasonable cause for the assessee in accepting the loans in cash and particularly as the loans were repaid by way of RTGS, i.e., via banking channels, penalty levied by AO under section 271D was deleted.
Shri Bansilal Bagri Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) This is the transaction arranged in such a way that the accommodation entries were made at several entities level and ultimately the money came back to the assessee. Herbicure Healthcare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation of Kolkata involved in the fraudulent and sham transactions, providing accommodation entries and claiming a […]
Since transaction between assessee and truck owners was a liability which assessee had to pay arising from trade transaction and same could not be added under section 68.
Respondent had issued incorrect invoices while selling the above products to his recipients as he had incorrectly shown the base prices and had also compelled them to pay additional GST on the increased prices through the incorrect tax invoices which would have otherwise resulted in further benefit to the recipients.
No netting of profits and losses of the eligible units was to be done for the purpose of calculating the deduction under section 80-IC and each unit for the said purpose had to be treated separately.
In the instant case, we notice that the TPO has entertained the belief on the basis of presumptions that the assessee’s AMP expenses have promoted the brand value of its AE, i.e., no material has been brought on record to show the existence of International transaction. Before us, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on various case laws.
Petitioner has submitted that there is no condition for making payment of tax as a pre-condition for filing return of Form GSTR-3B. It was submitted that in the absence of any such provision, the on- line system of the respondents which does not allow filing of returns without payment of tax liability admitted as per such returns is contrary to legal provisions. It was further submitted that if the petitioner is not able to file return in Form GSTR-3B by 20th April, 2019 the petitioner would be deprived of input tax credit.
