DVAT UPDATE + INCOME TAX UPDATE

Respected Members,

Greetings for the day,

This is for your information please:

1. Due date for E-filing DP-1 Form extended to 31.3.16 Notn. No. 1559 dt. 1.3.16.

2. Due date for E-filing CST Form-9 extended to 31.3.16 Cir. No. 39 dt. 29.2.16.

3. Due date for E-filing of CR-II for 1 to 3 Qtrs., 15-16 extended to 15.3.16 Notn. No. 1572 dt. 1.3.16.

4. Now Digital Signatures shall be Mandatory for filing DVAT returns w.e.f. 4th Qtr.,15-16 for dealers having turnover above 50 lakhs Notn. No. 1585 dt. 1.3.16.

CA YASHU GOEL

9899263490

VICE PRESIDENT

SALES TAX BAR ASSOCIATION

Comments

CBDT Instruction No 5/2014 dated 10.07.2014

Dear Members, The Hon'ble CBDT has issued Instruction No 5/2014 dated 10.07.2014 , by which the monetary limits for filing appeals to ITAT / HIGH COURT / SUPREME COURT have been revised. The New limits are: Tax effect Appeal before ITAT Rs. 4,00,000/- High Court Rs. 10,00,000/- Supreme Court Rs. 25,00,000/- Copy of Instruction is attached for your information.

GST - Electronic invoicing (E Invoicing) made mandatory

E-invoice has been made mandatory for taxpayers having turnover exceeding 10 crores from 1st October, 2022: Notification 17/2022 Central Tax dtd 01/08/2022 It implies that any registered person whose aggregate turnover in any preceding financial year from FY 2017-18 onwards has exceeded Rs 10 Crore shall issue E-invoice w.e.f 1st October 2022 . -- CA Yashu Goel 9899263490 M/s N.K. Goel & Bros. Chartered Accountants www.TaxingNarad.COM

S. 143(3) assessment void if case picked up contrary to CBDT’s Scrutiny Guidelines

Crystal Phosphates Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) S. 143(3) assessment void if case picked up contrary to CBDT’s Scrutiny Guidelines For AY 2006-07, the assessee filed a ROI declaring income of Rs. 3.97 crore. · The case was selected for scrutiny under clause 2(v)(b) of the Scrutiny Guidelines issued by the CBDT. · The said clause of the Scrutiny Guidelines provided that a case had to be selected for compulsory scrutiny if an addition/ disallowance of Rs. 5 lacs or more was pending in appeal before the CIT(A) and such identical issue also originated in the year under consideration. The assessee claimed that as this condition stipulated in the Scrutiny Guidelines was not satisfied, the AO had no jurisdiction to select the case for scrutiny . The AO & CIT(A) rejected the claim . On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, HELD allowing the appeal : The CBDT’s instructions ...

N K GOEL AND BROS.

Search This Blog