You are not Logged in


The bank account of the taxable person can be attached against whom the proceedings under the sections mentioned above are initiated. Section 83 does not provide for an automatic extension to any other taxable person from an inquiry specifically launched against a taxable person under these provisions.

Kaish Impex (P) Ltd. v. UOI

  Section 83   GST
It was evident that no physical discrepancy was found/detected by survey team and excess value of stock was merely because of difference in valuation of closing stock. Survey team took the valuation applying MRP-GP% whereas as per assessee, since as per normal trade practice sales were generally made after giving discounts @ 30% to 60%, stock was valued at MRP-Discounts-GP%. This discrepancy in valuation method was duly elucidated before AO. The statement showing valuation of closing stock at actual sale price supported by relevant invoices to prove assessee’s claim of overvaluation of stock by the survey team was also furnished, accordingly, addition made by AO could not be sustained.

Asstt. CIT v. National Cable Industries

  Section 133A   Direct Taxes
The simplicitor case that assessee during course of search in the statement recorded under section 132(4) admitted this to be the income to avoid litigation and to buy peace of mind. It was good piece of evidence for making assessment but not for levy of penalty under section 271AAB because for levy of peanlty falsity of the expense was a pre-requisite. Hence, penalty was deleted.

Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

  Section 271AAB   Direct Taxes
Therefore, it is evident that the term “amount payable by a person” is to mean that such liability arises only after determination of such amount in a manner known to law. Perusal of section 83 would show that the such provisional attachment can be resorted to only when proceedings are pending under any of the provisions viz., Section 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 and 74.

V.N. Mehta & Co. v. Asstt. Commr.

  Section 79 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017   GST
As shares were issued in lieu of shares and cash did not pass at any stage because respective parties did not receive cash nor did pay any cash, there was no real credit of cash in cash book and therefore, question of inclusion of the amount of journal entry as unexplained cash credit under section 68 could not arise.

ITO v. Bhagwat Marcom (P) Ltd.

  Section 68   Direct Taxes
There was no dispute to the fact that factory building owned by assessee was let out for which the assessee earned rental income. Whether there existed ‘leave and licence’ agreement and not ‘rental agreement’ would not change the colour of receipts in the hands of assessee and rental income had to be taxed under the head ‘income from house property’ and same was eligible for deduction under section 24.

Mahle Filter Systems (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

  Section 14   Direct Taxes
It is a case where a vehicle alongwith goods were seized when it was found carrying goods in violation of the Act of 2017. The petitioner alongwith owner of the goods was served with the notice before seizure of the goods. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle but he failed to prove that he had no knowledge about the goods carried in the vehicle so as to discharge his burden as otherwise envisaged under the Act of 2017.

Vajid v. State of U.P.

  U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017   GST
Where the amount received by assessee from the commission agent was against the sale of crops so it was neither the loan nor the deposit, therefore the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T were not applicable and as such penalty levied by the AO under sections 271D and 271E was not justified, accordingly the same was deleted.

Hardeep Singh v. JCIT

  Section 271D and 271E   Direct Taxes
The counsel for the petitioner would submits that there is serious delay in effecting the refunds and that the petitioner is entitled for interest. After the abovesaid finalization as afore-directed, it will be open to the petitioner to submit representation before the competent authority among the respondents in the matter of his claim for interest if any and such claim should also be later considered and decided by competent respondent official concerned within 4 weeks thereafter.

Akay Flavours & Aromatics (P) Ltd. v. CBIT & Cus.

  CGST Act, 2017   GST
Stamp duty and registration charges for execution of lease deed did not involve any element of premium. It was incurred only to draw up and get registered an effective and proper lease deed and would have remained the same, irrespective of the period of lease as long as it was more than one year. Further, period of lease itself could not be decisive of the question as to whether the asset was of enduring nature. On these facts, impugned expenditure was revenue in nature and had to be considered in light of section 37(1).

R. Systems International Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

  Section 37(1)   Direct Taxes
1 2