In the present case services were provided by the non-resident individuals so article 15 was applicable but the pre-requisite condition that the each non-resident individual had to be present in India for more than 90 days which was not ascertained.
Delhi High Court has in the case of CIT Vs M/s Bharat Hotels held that If appellant Leasee is having entire control over the building than even though no ownership rights vest him, still he can claim depreciation on the same.
ITAT Delhi has held in the case of Perfect Paradise Emporium Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO that If creditors are found bogus then the amount can be added back to income u/s 68 as unexplained cash credits or us 41(1) as business income.
Claim cannot be denied if sufficient documents are in hand of AO even though the party does not reply to notice issued u/s 133(6); (even though the party confirmation is not available against notice issued u/s 133(6)).
In, the present case the Hon’ble High Court held that the deposit of tax before the initiation of penalty proceedings will not help Assessee in escaping the penalty proceedings u/s 221. Also, the point of Financial hardship, diverse locations and lack of computerization will not give any relief to the assessee.
In the present case the Hon’ble High Court while accepting the Writ filed by the assessee, restored the matter back to the Tribunal by observing that the Judicial Functions should not be performed in the arbitrary manner.
In, the present facts of the Case the Hon’ble High Court held that no penalty could be levied until it is proved that there was an active concealment or there is deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Filing of appeal under Section 260A of the Act is a serious issue. The parties who seek to file such appeals must do so after due application of mind and not raise frivolous / concluded issues. This is certainly expected of the State.
In the present facts of the Case there were two vital issues contended by the Revenue which were dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court by observing that the amount received as restrictive covenant is a capital receipt and is taxable only as a revenue receipt w.e.f. 1/4/2003.
Whether mandatory pre-deposit provision under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944[as applicable for Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and for Customs vide Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962] would be applicable to the cases where the lis commenced prior to August 6, 2014?
