Third issue highlighted by the petitioner is that Central and State Acts permit rectification of mistakes. However, GSTN portal does not permit rectification of a return already filed. Rectification is to be made in the subsequent return. Nevertheless authorities are issuing notices to the assessees whenever rectification is made, treating rectification as a discrepancy between GSTR1 and GSTR3B. A large number of assessees are facing this problem.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that that due to technical fault of the State Web-site E-way bill-02 could not be generated on 25.3.2018 before the movement of the goods from Varanasi to Fatehpur, however, the same was generated on 26.3.2018 in the morning which was much before the date of seizure order which has been admittedly passed on 27.3.2018 at 6 p.m.
When penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the revenue under section 271(1)(c), the specific ground, i.e., either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof has to be spelt out in clear terms. Otherwise, an assessee would not have proper opportunity to put forth his defence. Therefore, penalty order was not sustainable in the absence of specific charge mentioned by AO.
That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, New Delhi has erred in deciding the appellate proceedings by confirming the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer without providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to submit and substantiate his claim on the additions made by the Learned Assessing.
While computing exemption under section 54F, expenditure incurred towards vacating the new house property from tenants were includible as part of its cost, because existence of encumbrance was specified in the purchase agreement and original cost of acquisition was much lower than fair market value of the house property due to such attached illegal occupation.
Shri Arun Kumar Jain Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) The A.O. noted that as per Section 54(2) of the I.T. Act, the amount of capital gain, which is not utilized by him for the purchase of new asset before the date of furnishing the ITR under section 139, shall be deposited by him, before furnishing such […]
The Madras High Court recently ruled that payment of Interest by the co-operative society to its members would not attract tax deduction at source (TDS) prior to the amendment of such provision.
Aforesaid appeals by the Revenue are against separate orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals)–2, Mumbai, in respect of three different assessees pertaining to assessment years 2008–09, 2010–11 and 2011–12.
Whether educational courses offered by the Applicant which have been approved by National Skill Development Corporation would be construed as in relation to National Skill Development Programme implemented by NSDC?
The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 30.04.2005 passed by CIT(A)-41, New Delhi confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 201 (1) and 201 (1A) of the I. T. Act for the A.Y. 2011-12.
