Samsung’s Research and Development Wing in Bangalore, India has been fined Rs. 11.67 lakhs by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ Registrar of Companies (RoC) for failing to file Form MSME-1. On August 25, 2023, the corporation voluntarily filed an adjudication application, admitting that it had not given full disclosures for some transactions.
According to information provided in an exchange filing, TVS Electronics Limited got a Goods and Services Tax (GST) Assessment Order on Saturday, December 23. Right now, Proper Officer, Ward 93, New Delhi, is the opposing party in the case, which is under the jurisdiction of The Joint Commissioner of State Tax-New Delhi.
According to the exchange statement, the business expects this legal case to have a financial impact of Rs 17.04 crore. Regarding credit notes and other Input Tax Credits (ITC), this order focuses on ITC for the 2017–18 fiscal year. Citing disparities in the treatment of credit notes—specifically, the deduction of GST on credit notes from the net ITC, which resulted in a notable variance—the department made a demand.
TVS Electronics responded by reporting credit notes for both purchases and returns in accordance with the vendor’s GSTR1 (GST Return) submission. On the basis of its accounting records, the company claimed ITC. A thorough answer has been sent to the department, backed up by relevant documentation. Right now, the business is arguing its case before the Joint Commissioner of State Tax in New Delhi. TVS Electronics’ shares closed 1.64 percent higher at Rs 353.65 apiece on the NSE on Friday, December 22.
While providing relief to the assessee ICICI Bank, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, determined that costs related to employee club membership fees are considered business expenses. ICICI Bank Ltd., the assessee, is involved in the banking industry and related businesses. The Tax Audit Report was examined by the Assessing Officer (AO), who found that the assessee had paid Rs. 1,13,85,062 in club dues and subscriptions. The AO regarded the Membership Fees as capital after taking the assessee’s submission into account. The explanation given was that the money was paid for the first time.
The matter was remanded by the Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) so that the CA certificate may be taken into consideration when determining whether unjust enrichment applied to the excise duty refund claim. The appellants, Bhor Industries Ltd., feel wronged by the denial of their claims for duty refunds. They argue that the lower appellate authority erred in ruling that the duty burden had been transferred to their clients, and as a result, he failed to take into account the Chartered Accountant’s certificate that they submitted to the lower authorities as supporting evidence.
