The final order passed by the tax authority, however, cancelled assessee’s registration with retrospective effect. Assessee’s main argument was that this action was illegal because the SCN never mentioned or proposed a retrospective cancellation; it only proposed a simple cancellation.
Madras HC rules consolidated GST SCN/order covering multiple financial years is impermissible, violating the statutory limitation framework. Orders quashed; new proceedings allowed.
ITAT held that provisions taxing difference in stamp value and purchase price apply only to land and buildings, not leasehold rights. Addition of ₹21.95 lakh was set aside.
Assessee argued that the order was barred by limitation because it was not served within the prescribed time. AO countered this, claiming the order was dispatched via speed post on December 30, 2017, and had thus left the office within the deadline.
Delhi High Court held that addition of demonetization cash deposit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit rightly deleted by CIT(A) since source of deposit duly explained with documentary evidence. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
NCLT Chennai held that application u/s. 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code admitted for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Corporate Applicant since there is a default in the repayment of debt and the petition filed u/s. 10 is complete.
In Weston Electronics, the reduction on the rate of sales tax on television sets manufactured within the State to 1% whereas television sets imported from outside the State of Gujarat being at 10% was held to be discriminatory in nature and therefore, struck down.
Mere act of depositing cash into a bank account, even during demonetization, was not conclusive proof of unexplained income under Section 69A especially for a business operating under a presumptive tax scheme.
High Court held that the Revenue itself had accepted the provision in earlier years and not disputed it even before the jurisdictional High Court in appeal for AY 2009-10. Since the provision was scientific and actually discharged, no substantial question of law arose.
The allegations surfaced that a syndicate was involved in importing multiple high-end cars in the names of foreign diplomats, evading duties, forging bills of entry, and subsequently selling the cars to unsuspecting buyers in India.
