Sec. 68 AO cannot Examine Source of Source in Non-Share Capital Cases

ACIT, Vs Smt. Prem Anand (ITAT Delhi)

Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that the assessee is not required to explain source of source of the fund gets buttressed by the amendment made in section 68 with effect from 01.04.2013, which empowers the AO to examine source of source in case of share application money from 01.04.2013 and no other cases prior to that....

Read More

TDS on Land Acquisition amount is part of Compensation: SC

Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. Mazdoor Sangh (Bms) Etc Vs Baranagore Jute Factory Plc (Supreme Court of India)

Respondents should not have appropriated the refund they received from the Income- Tax Department. There is nothing wrong in claiming the refund. The problem is in utilising the refund received. ...

Read More

Certificate of competent authority only can be relied for measurement of distance of land from Municipality

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Mr. Alkesh Kanti Lal Patel (ITAT Mumbai)

However, the relevant certificate from the competent authority has not been submitted by the assessee as required under law for determination of the distance of land in question from Municipality etc. ...

Read More

UP VAT Registration cannot be denied for mere wrong Input Tax Credit claim

Sevak Enterprises Vs Commissioner, Commercial Tax (Allahabad High Court)

Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra of Allahabad High Court held that, wrongful claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) would not constitute sufficient ground for cancellation of registration of a dealer under UP Value Added Tax Act....

Read More

Subsidy for Setting Up / Expansion of Industry is tax-free Capital Receipt

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

It is an admitted position that the assessee treated the amount of subsidy as a capital receipt, but, did not reduce it from the value of fixed assets and eventually claimed depreciation on the higher value of assets without reduction of such subsidy. To deal with such a situation, the Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 1-4-2016, […]...

Read More

Income from Share Trading in the nature of business cannot be treated as ‘Capital Gain’

Income-Tax Officer Vs Manusi Securities Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahemdabad)

Assessee is regularly in the business of purchase-sale of equity shares, share transactions entered during the year were in large number, funds were borrowed for the purpose of trading, no separate account has been maintained for the investment portfolio and all the transactions of purchase sale raised are only for one scrip namely Suraj ...

Read More

Assessee not allowed to appear with Counsel to Record Statement U/s. 108 of Customs Act

Pawan Kumar Pawan Arora Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court)

In view of law laid down by Apex Court in case of Poolpandi & Others v. Superintendent, Central Excise & Others, presence of counsel refusal during interrogation/recording the statement of a person under Customs Act would not be violative of Article 20 (3) and 21 of Constitution of India....

Read More

Use of revisionary Power to delay DVAT Refund Claim is an Abuse of Power

Garg Roadlines Vs Commissioner Trade & Taxes (Delhi High Court)

There is sufficient indication from the notes on files that the invocation of the revisionary powers under Section 74A of the DVAT Act was to delay making the refund which was overdue for over six years. The Court is left no manner of doubt is that this was plainly an abuse of power vested in the Commissioner which calls for disapproval i...

Read More

No Penalty for non payment of service Tax if no willful suppression of facts to evade tax

Mahadev Logistics, Vs Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission (Chhattisgarh High Court)

Court is of the considered opinion that there is no willful suppression of facts to evade tax on the part of the petitioner and it was bona fide on the part of the petitioner, it was not deliberate and in absence of finding relating to mensrea recorded by the Settlement Commission, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner under Section 78 ...

Read More

Custodian of Goods cannot deny his liability for export of Illicit Goods

M/s. Sanco Trans Ltd Vs The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Madras High Court)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the assessee challenging an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 15.6.2015 confirming imposition of penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act (in short Act) though reducing the quantum from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.2.5 lakhs....

Read More
Page 5 of 950« First...34567...102030...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,354)
Company Law (3,238)
Custom Duty (6,410)
DGFT (3,340)
Excise Duty (3,989)
Fema / RBI (3,152)
Finance (3,316)
Income Tax (24,362)
SEBI (2,658)
Service Tax (3,261)

Search Posts by Date

April 2017
« Mar