Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Tax Updates - TMI e-Newsletters

Home e-Newsletters Index Year 2021 May Day 15 - Saturday

TMI e-Newsletters FAQ
You need to Subscribe a package.

Newsletter: Where Service Meets Reader Approval.

TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
May 15, 2021

Case Laws in this Newsletter:

GST Income Tax Customs Corporate Laws Insolvency & Bankruptcy Service Tax Central Excise Indian Laws



Highlights / Catch Notes

    GST

  • Validity of assessment order - non-filing of GSTR-3B return - best judgment assessment under Section 62 of Telangana GST Act - the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration - HC

  • Income Tax

  • Order passed before the time prescribed for filing the reply - Validity of assessment - violation of principles of natural justice - there shall be a stay on the operation of the impugned assessment order dated 22.04.2021, as well as the notice of demand issued under Section 156 and the notice initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act. - HC

  • Order passed before the time prescribed for filing the reply - Validity of assessment - violation of principles of natural justice - faceless assessment scheme - The impugned order is thus set aside. The petitioner will file its response to show cause notice dated 19.03.2021 within a period of two weeks from today and the assessment shall be completed de novo within a period of six (6) weeks from today, after hearing the petitioner. - HC

  • Stay of demand - We are of the view that rejection of the stay-application is nothing but harassment to the assessee as there is no distinction between the facts of the pending appeals from the order of the Tribunal and CIT(Appeals) rendered in favour of the assessee for the earlier years and hence, CIT (Appeals) is bound to follow the order of the Tribunal for earlier years. - HC

  • Addition u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE - As cash receipts represent the sales which the assessee has rightly offered for taxation. We have gone through the trading account and find that there was sufficient stock to effect the sales and we do not find any defect in the stock as well as the sales. Since, the assessee has already admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there is no case for making the addition u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE again. - AT

  • Condonation of delay in filing in appeal - Since, in this case there was mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer, as he did not bring the addition made by him in the computation of taxes and did not create the demand, and that is why, assessee’s issue has not been adjudicated. The assessee should not suffer because of the mistake made by the Assessing Officer. Hence, assessee deserves that delay in filing appeal against the order under section 154 should be condoned. - AT

  • Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 43B as well as disallowance export product development expenses - Just because the assessee has not preferred further appeal before the appellate authority against the quantum addition that itself cannot attract imposition of penalty. Under the above facts and circumstances, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act towards disallowance of interest expenditure under section 43B of the Act as well as disallowance export product development expenses stand deleted - AT

  • TDS u/s 194A - Disallowance of interest expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of TDS - it is noticed that counsel of the assessee has voluntarily agreed for the disallowance of interest expenditure since the assessee has failed to make compliance with the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Keeping in view of the aforesaid undisputed facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A) - AT

  • Customs

  • The filing of appeal in the instant case would not be regarded as filing of appeals repeatedly since the earlier order came to be passed by the third respondent not on merits but only on the sole ground of failure on the part of the petitioner herein to comply with the mandatory requirement of law but not on merits. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said order, dated 03.11.2020, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be regarded as the order on merits but is only an order refusing to entertain the appeal. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Standing Counsel that the petitioner herein is required to be relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal to the CESTAT cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, rejected. - Matter restored before the CESTAT - HC

  • Indian Laws

  • Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of the accused - the trial Court has rightly held that the accused was successful to rebut the presumption available to her under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and concluded that the evidence placed on record by the complainant is not sufficient to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted her. - HC

  • Dishonor of cheque - the complaints filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. through Power of Attorney holder maintainable or not - If the the Power of Attorney holder is having knowledge and belief with regard to the transaction of facts and he has verified the contents of the complaints to the said effect., he can file the complaint - The petitioners failed to establish any ground warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C - HC

  • IBC

  • Approval of Resolution Plan - provision for the payment of Provident Fund dues not made - After approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 31, the claims as provided in the Resolution Plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors including the Central Government, any State Government or any Local Authority, Guarantors and other Stakeholders. On the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims that are not a part of the Resolution Plan shall stand extinguished. - AT

  • Initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - time limitation - the guarantor(s) on 20.02.2018 had executed ‘Balance and Security Confirmation Letters’ in respect of the account of Corporate Debtor in respect of the ‘Term Loan Facility’, which clearly point out that there was an ‘Acknowledgement of Debt’, in terms of Section 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. - AT

  • Liquidation of company - It must be borne in mind that the IBC treats the CIRP and Liquidation process as two separate stages and the proof of claim is to be filed separately at each stage and hence the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant that claims filed during CIRP should be treated as the Claim filed during the Liquidation process would render the CIRP and Liquidation Process as envisaged under the provisions of IBC, 2016 as nugatory. - Tri

  • Service Tax

  • Defaulter under the SVLDRS scheme or not - failure to pay the amount mentioned in SVLDRS-3 in time - Seeking adjustment of refund under Income Tax with amount payable under SVLDRS - Merely because the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax accorded approval for adjusting income tax refund against dues to the Service Tax Department, the action of the 3rd respondent, which is per se illegal and in violation of Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not get validated - HC

  • Levy of service tax on freight charges - GTA Services - Appellant being manufacturer - No consignment note was issued by any of the transporters - delivery of the goods by the transporters in the instant case does not fall under GTA services in terms of Section 65(105)(zzp) of the Act. Consequently, the said transporters cannot be said to be “Goods Transport Agency” within the meaning of Section 65(50b) of the Act. - AT

  • Central Excise

  • Reversal of Cenvat Credit - cenvat credit on common inputs - The relevant provisions and procedure nowhere requires that an assessee should pay an amount higher than that of the actual amount calculated under the procedure prescribed under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.- AT

  • CENVAT Credit - common inputs and input services - it is an undisputed fact that the appellant had reversed the entire amount of Cenvat credit as required under Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3A)(c) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - the demand confirmed under Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules by the Adjudicating Authority/Commissioner (Appeals) by choosing such option in the show cause notice cannot be sustained. - AT


Articles


Notifications


Circulars / Instructions / Orders


News


Case Laws:

  • GST

  • 2021 (5) TMI 465
  • 2021 (5) TMI 464
  • 2021 (5) TMI 453
  • 2021 (5) TMI 449
  • Income Tax

  • 2021 (5) TMI 467
  • 2021 (5) TMI 466
  • 2021 (5) TMI 461
  • 2021 (5) TMI 460
  • 2021 (5) TMI 456
  • 2021 (5) TMI 454
  • 2021 (5) TMI 452
  • 2021 (5) TMI 450
  • 2021 (5) TMI 448
  • 2021 (5) TMI 447
  • 2021 (5) TMI 446
  • 2021 (5) TMI 445
  • 2021 (5) TMI 439
  • 2021 (5) TMI 438
  • 2021 (5) TMI 437
  • 2021 (5) TMI 436
  • 2021 (5) TMI 428
  • 2021 (5) TMI 424
  • 2021 (5) TMI 423
  • 2021 (5) TMI 422
  • 2021 (5) TMI 421
  • Customs

  • 2021 (5) TMI 459
  • Corporate Laws

  • 2021 (5) TMI 430
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy

  • 2021 (5) TMI 444
  • 2021 (5) TMI 443
  • 2021 (5) TMI 435
  • 2021 (5) TMI 434
  • 2021 (5) TMI 433
  • 2021 (5) TMI 432
  • 2021 (5) TMI 431
  • 2021 (5) TMI 429
  • 2021 (5) TMI 427
  • 2021 (5) TMI 426
  • 2021 (5) TMI 425
  • Service Tax

  • 2021 (5) TMI 462
  • 2021 (5) TMI 440
  • Central Excise

  • 2021 (5) TMI 458
  • 2021 (5) TMI 442
  • 2021 (5) TMI 441
  • Indian Laws

  • 2021 (5) TMI 463
  • 2021 (5) TMI 457
  • 2021 (5) TMI 455
  • 2021 (5) TMI 451
 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates