ITAT Mumbai held 100% bogus purchase disallowance unsustainable where sales and banking trail were proven; restricted addition to 5% profit element, following earlier years.
Bombay High Court held that issuance of summons under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST Act] for inquiry do not constitute illegal detention. Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed.
Orissa High Court held that refund claimed in respect of tax paid erroneously or under mistaken notion cannot be denied solely on the ground of limitation stipulated in section 54 of the GST Act. Accordingly, refund of taxes deposited twice is allowed and order rejection refund is quashed.
The Gujarat AAR held that mobilisation advance adjusted against running account bills constitutes consideration under Section 2(31) of the CGST Act. As it is applied toward works contract services, GST becomes payable. The ruling clarifies that such advances cannot be treated as mere loans to avoid tax liability.
CESTAT Kolkata held that demand of service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism [RCM] raised merely on the basis of figures appearing in Balance Sheet without classifying the category of service is not sustainable.
ITAT dismissed the Revenues appeal because it did not contest the CIT(A)s ruling that the reassessment notice was legally invalid. Without challenging the jurisdictional defect, the appeal became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that accumulated savings and customary cash gifts over 40 years of marital life were a plausible explanation for seized cash. It deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that service tax paid under a partner’s registration can be adjusted against the firm’s liability. However, liability as a sub-contractor was upheld.
The addition under Section 68 was deleted as capital introduced by partners is not a loan or unexplained credit of the firm. Enquiry into partners creditworthiness must be conducted separately in their cases.
The Tribunal held that cash received at the time of executing a registered sale deed does not fall within the definition of “specified sum” under Section 269SS. Since the provision primarily targets advances in property transactions, penalty under Section 271D was unsustainable.
