The claim of exemption under section 11 could not be denied to assessee society on the ground that the audit report was not filed online along with the return as the requirement of law that the assessee shall have its account audited, had been complied with within the time prescribed by the statute.
Once the Department i.e. the Assessing Officer had certain information, material, or document before him during the assessment proceeding, irrespective of the source of such information, material, or document, the Assessee cannot be blamed for non-disclosure thereof.
The Respondent’s submissions that the price of the product was not increased at the time of introduction of GST when the rate of tax was increased to 28% and hence the question of reducing the prices when the rate of tax was decreased from 28% to 18% does not arise is legally not sustainable in as much as Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 is very clear that the benefit of reduction in tax has to be necessarily passed on to the recipient by commensurately reducing the prices. Secondly the argument that the pre GST prices and the post reduction prices should have been compared will also not hold good as the DGAP has rightly taken into consideration the prices before the rate reduction and the prices after the reduction of tax rates to analyse and estimate the extent of benefit passed on to the recipient.
Since there was an order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) in relation to the assessment year in respect of which assessment was sought to be reopened, AO had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as once an order had been passed under section 245D by Settlement Commission, assessment for year stood concluded.
Oil India Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) Refund jurisdiction of the Officers of Central Excise and Service Tax emanates from Section 12E and Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The powers of the first appellate authority to decide appeals or such decisions emanates […]
M/s. Oxcia Enterprises Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Jodhapur) Even though the admitted position is that the assessee buyer/transferee has not deducted tax in the hands of the Joint Owners of the property, still we note that sub-section(2) of sec. 194-IA of the Act provides an exception from deducting tax of 1% of the sale […]
In re M/s. Vikram Solar (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh) 1. Whether following three separate contracts awarded to a contractor for establishment of a Solar Power Plant namely: a) Contract for supply of Goods. b) Contract for supply of Erection and Installation Services c) Contract for supply of Operation and Maintenance Service for a period of […]
In the present case at the very inception notice initiating penalty is not in accordance with mandates of law. Moreover, it is settled position of law that such defect is not curable u/s 292BB of the Act. Therefore, we hereby quash the penalty order.
Bombay High Court case – Ankita Choksey challenges re-opening notice under Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessing Officer’s jurisdictional challenge discussed.
Firstly, we may observe that the learned Single Judge was absolutely right in holding that the Assessee, having not raised an objection before the Assessing Authority to the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act, should be deemed to have acquiesced to the same. Nothing prevented the Assessee from raising the objection, which could have been dealt with by the Assessing Authority in accordance with law.
