Check your phone. I have messaged an OTP. It is a 6 digit number. Feed it in the box below
Do you want me to resend the OTP? Yes resend itPunch your phone number in the box below
I’II send an OTP on it.
I won’t confide your phone with anyone.
My Dear ,
Please write your reason against the objection raised in the box below.
I appreciate your effort.
May I request you to select one of the reasons for purging from below.
Disrespectful or rude towards a person or a group.
Promotes an undisclosed link or product or service.
Not seeking genuine answers .
Vulgar, Obscene, abusive etc..
Not a post on law or business.
Copied from other website or source and pasted here.
Has bad format, grammar, spelling so requires moderatation.
Thank you,
Yours sincerely,
Aaradhika, Thakurani's bestie
Do you think that the tax news in simple language are better? Can you write them in simple language? and then broadcast? Then Write them at shocks n mocks.
The High Court of Delhi, in the case of W.P.(C) 1262/2024 - KOXAN INDIA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF GST & ANR., addressed the retrospective cancellation of GST registration. The petitioner challenged the order dated 24.03.2021, which cancelled their …
Login to write your newsIn this case, the petitioner challenged the order cancelling their GST registration retrospectively from 28.05.2022. The court found that the show cause notice and cancellation order lacked details and reasons for the retrospective cancellation. Con…
Login to write your newsThis case involves a dispute over the retrospective cancellation of a petitioner's GST registration by the tax authorities. The petitioner challenged the cancellation order and the show cause notice, arguing that the reasons for retrospective cancel…
Login to write your newsThe petitioner challenged the order cancelling their GST registration retrospectively from January 2022 and the show cause notice leading to the cancellation. The court found that neither the show cause notice nor the cancellation order provided cog…
Login to write your newsThis case involves a dispute over the retrospective cancellation of a taxpayer's GST registration by the tax authorities. The petitioner challenged the order canceling their GST registration retrospectively from July 2017, despite receiving a show c…
Login to write your newsThe petitioner, engaged in the trading of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, challenged the order dated 29.02.2024 that cancelled its GST registration retrospectively from 05.05.2018 and the show cause notice dated 05.01.2024 issued by the GST authorit…
Login to write your newsThis case involves a dispute over the retrospective cancellation of a proprietorship firm's GST registration by the tax authorities. The firm challenged the cancellation order, arguing that it lacked proper reasoning and denied them an opportunity t…
Login to write your newsThe petitioner, a private limited company, challenged the order dated 19.04.2021 that cancelled its GST registration retrospectively from 01.07.2017 and the show cause notice dated 11.02.2021 issued by the GST authorities. The court found the show c…
Login to write your newsThis case involves a dispute over the retrospective cancellation of a petitioner's GST registration by the authorities. The petitioner challenged the cancellation order dated 15.12.2022, which retrospectively cancelled the registration from 01.07.20…
Login to write your newsThis case involves a dispute between a proprietor (petitioner) and the GST authorities (respondent) over the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner sought to cancel the registration from a specific date, but the authoritie…
Login to write your newsThe petitioner, a trading firm, challenged the orders cancelling its GST registration retrospectively from July 2017 and dismissing its appeal for restoration. The court found issues with the orders and modified the cancellation date to the date req…
Login to write your newsThe case involved a petitioner challenging the retrospective cancellation of their GST registration from 15.07.2017 and the Show Cause Notice dated 03.02.2021. The court found deficiencies in the impugned order and the Show Cause Notice, and modifie…
Login to write your newsThe petitioner challenged the order cancelling their GST registration retrospectively from July 2017 and the preceding show cause notice. The court found issues with the lack of reasoning, contradictory statements, and the opportunity to object to the retrospective cancellation. Ultimately, the court modified the order to cancel the registration from October 2022, the date of the show cause notice.
The petitioner challenged the order cancelling their GST registration retrospectively from November 2017, as well as the preceding show cause notice. The court found issues with the lack of reasoning and opportunity to object to the retrospective cancellation. Ultimately, the court modified the order to cancel the registration from June 2021, the last period for which the petitioner filed GST returns.
The petitioner challenged the order cancelling their GST registration retrospectively from July 2017, as well as the show cause notice leading to the cancellation. The court found issues with the lack of reasoning and opportunity to object to the retrospective cancellation. Ultimately, the court modified the order to cancel the registration from the date the petitioner applied for cancellation in May 2018.
The court set aside the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration with retrospective effect from 03.12.2021. The petitioner, a garment manufacturer, had applied for a change in registered business address, but the application was rejected due to non-submission of documents. Subsequently, the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled retrospectively for allegedly issuing invoices without supply of goods or services. The court found the ca…
This case involves a dispute over the retrospective cancellation of a taxpayer's GST registration by the tax authorities. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice and the order canceling their GST registration retrospectively from July 2017. The court found that the show cause notice and the cancellation order lacked proper reasoning and did not provide the petitioner with an opportunity to object to the retrospective cancellation. The court…
This case involves a dispute over the retrospective cancellation of a taxpayer’s GST registration by the tax authorities. The petitioner challenged the order canceling their GST registration retrospectively from July 2017, despite having applied for cancellation in March 2022. The court found issues with the retrospective cancellation and modified the order to make the cancellation effective from the date of the petitioner’s application in March 20…
Goods & Services Tax,Apr. 09, 2024The case involves Banarsidas Banot & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which was heard by G.P. Singh and Faizanuddin, J. in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on November 25, 1980. The case pertains to the assessment year 1973-74, where the assessee returned an income of Rs. 2,83,873, but the Income Tax Officer (ITO) assessed it at Rs. 6,97,136. As the variation in the income returned exceeded Rs. 1 lakh, a draft assessment order under section 144B…
The High Court of Bombay at Goa delivered a judgment on Tax Appeal No. 144 of 2017, ruling that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer without issuing a draft assessment order was illegal and without jurisdiction. The case involved the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji Goa, as the appellant, and M/s Andrew Telecommunications P. Ltd., Verna Salcete Goa, as the respondent. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order…
The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a real estate company against an Income Tax assessment order, which added Rs. 3.67 crores to its total income for the assessment year 2012-13. The court held that the company's objection to the draft assessment order was rightly rejected by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) as it was filed after the stipulated 30-day period. The court clarified that the final assessment order was not passed in pur…
The Petitioner, Sinogas Management PTE. Ltd., a Singapore-based company, challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court quashed the order, demand notice, and penalty notice issued by the DCIT for not following the mandatory requirement of issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) before passing the final order, as the Petition…
Income Tax,Mar. 12, 2024Check your phone. I have messaged an OTP. It is a 6 digit number. Feed it in the box below
Do you want me to resend the OTP? Yes resend itCheck your phone. I have messaged an OTP. It is a 6 digit number. Feed it in the box below
Do you want me to resend the OTP? Yes resend itCheck your phone. I have messaged an OTP. It is a 5 digit number. Feed it in the box below
Do you want me to resend the OTP? Yes resend itThanks, for confirming your phone number.
You can change it in your profile.Are you a tax professional?
If yes, then you can earn
money through me.
download the mobile app
You have successfully created your diary. You can access it from 'Store/Your Stuff' section.
OK