In re Hero Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAAR Haryana) The order dated 22.08.2018 of the Advance Ruling Authority is quashed and the applicant may approach the Advance Ruling Authority for taking a decision afresh in accordance with law. The advance ruling dated 29.08.2018 obtained by the appellant is prior to the amendments made with […]
Kuntal A Parikh Vs Mr. Utkarsh Sharma (Gujarat High Court) Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, supported the impugned order by submitting that admittedly the goods were not accompanied by Part-B of the E-way bills and hence, the second respondent was wholly justified in detaining the conveyance and goods. It was further submitted that as […]
Since a bare reading of scheme of Section 50C would show that assessee could object to presumptive value as per Section 50C (1) and, therefore, it was only after hearing the objections of assessee, the fair market value of capital asset as per ‘Guidance Value’ could be determined by authorities, therefore, the matter was remitted back to Assessing Authority to decide both the questions about the valuation of the property to be taken while dealing with the objections of the assessee against the Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as the presumptive value under Section 50C and then compute ‘Fair Market Value’ under Section 48.
In this case, the eligibility to the exemption sought has not been denied by the department and rightly so. Thus, the defence that the assessment is correct in the light of the assessee non co-operation is not a defence at all, and is rejected.
It is apparent that the Respondent did not increase the per unit base price (excluding GST) of the product, which was Rs. 1028.07 in the pre-GST era. Further, it was reduced to Rs. 1021.73 in the post-GST era w.e.f 01.07.2017 and it also remained at Rs. 1021.73 when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f 15.11.2017 and hence, there was no increase in the per unit base price. Therefore, the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. As such, we do not find any merit in the application filed by the above Applicants and the same is therefore dismissed.
Addition under section 68 on account of bogus shre capital was unjustified as the identity and creditworthiness of share subscribers and genuineness of receipt of share capital stood established and non-production of directors of subscriber companies could not be a sole ground to make addition.
Yokogawa India Ltd Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Facts Assailing the communication dated 22.03.2019 issued by the respondent No.6, Petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents to enable them to revise their Form GST TRAN-1 in order to transit the amount of Rs.4,31,32,066/- in the Electronic Credit Ledger in terms of […]
Power of review is not an inherent power but must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. Courts have consistently held that review proceedings imply those proceedings where a party, as of right, can apply for reconsideration of the matter already decided upon after a fresh hearing on the merits of the controversy between the parties and that such a remedy is available only if provided by the statute.
Where the loans were taken by assessee in cash from his relatives, the transactions between relatives were not in the nature of loans or deposits as envisaged in section 269SS and the penalty imposed under section 271D was accordingly cancelled.
ITAT held that the business receipts of the foreign residents are not taxable in India since the agents have no PE in India and therefore, the assessee was not required to make TDS u/s 195 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee’s appeals for all the three A.Ys are allowed.
