Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
In partial modification to Order No. 7/FT&TR/2013 dated 14th November, 2013 and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961) read with Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009 as amended from time to time and keeping in view the workload and efficient functioning of Dispute Resolution Panels (DRPs) at Mumbai, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby directs that the following DRPs
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (15) of section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961(43 of 1951) read with income tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009 as amended from time to time and in addition to earlier Orders constituting Dispute Resolution Panels at Mumbai, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby constitutes the Dispute Resolution Panel-IV at Mumbai comprising of three Commissioners of income-tax as Members
Peri (India) Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) imported old and used pipes declaring them as ‘old and used Prop Pep 20-300’ (Impugned goods) and classified them under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7308 4000. The said classification was accepted and duty was demanded accordingly.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi held that the matter is no longer res integra as it has been consistently held that substantial benefit cannot be denied merely because some aspects of the procedure had not been followed.
It was held by the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai that while the Department had opportunity to verify whatever information/ statements furnished by the Appellant, a copy of the verification report should have been provided to the Appellant to make their submissions/rebuttal.
In the instant case, AP. Engineers (the Assessee) filed a refund claim of Service tax which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority as hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment. On appeal being made to the Commissioner (Appeals)
Admittedly, the undisputed fact is that the assessee in the case on hand, has not deducted tax at source on the payments made to Shri Uday Kumar Shetty amounting to Rs.1,53,78,795/-. As submitted by the ld.AR, as far as the payments made by the assessee to Shri Uday Kumar Shetty
CA. M. Lakshmanan While paying direct taxes such as advance tax, self assessment tax, TDS and tax on regular assessment in the NSDL site after PAN and all other relevant columns such as assessment year, name, address, type of payment etc., are filled in and before we are directed to the Bank portal, the name […]
State Bank of India Local Head Office, New Delhi – 110001 Tel: 011-23407458 Empanelment of Concurrent Auditors for Branches situated in the States of Delhi, Uttrakhand, Rajasthan and some districts of Uttar Pradesh Applications are invited from Chartered Accountants firms! LLP (situated in States of Delhi, Uttrakhand, Rajasthan and some districts of Uttar Pradesh), as […]
CBDT has noticed that 5,09,898/- taxpayers who have submitted an return for AY 2011-12 or 2012-13 or AY 2013-14 (Upto 20th October 2014) with returned Income of More than 10 Lakh or paid self assessment tax of more than / equal to one lakh (as per ITR) have not filed ITR for AY 2014-15.
