Delhi High Court held In the case of The Principal CIT vs. Samcor Glass Ltd. & M/s Samtel Color Ltd. that it is a settled position of law that reopening of assessment beyond 4 years is not sustainable unless there was a failure by the Assessee to disclose any material particulars
Delhi High Court held In the case of R.S. Bedi vs. ACIT that no addition u/s 69B is maintainable on the sole basis of DVO report. In the given case, although AO found some document during the search, but the same was not the basis for addition as also noted by ITAT.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Haryana Paneer Bhandar vs. CIT. that the Revenue has been unable to produce the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person. Consequently, on this short ground of there being no satisfaction note, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 158BD.
Delhi High Court held In the case of The CIT vs. Sunil Aggarwal that the Assessee had an explanation for not retracting the statement earlier. He also furnished an explanation for the cash that found in the hands of his employee and this was verifiable from the books of accounts.
The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Gemstone Glass Pvt. Ltd vs. JCIT held that when an associated enterprise is taken as comparable then CUP method cannot be adopted for determining Arm Length Price irrespective of the fact that the associated enterprise taken as comparable is resident or non-resident.
The ITAT Delhi in the case of Fashion Design Council of India vs. Assistant DIT held that accumulation of income for utilization in future is allowable as deduction when the same is accumulated for meeting an object stated in trust’s charter document AND AO cannot treat the same as accumulation for general & indefinite purpose merely because that object had been most pursued one by the trust.
Can you name one ultimate thing which everyone in the whole world wants to have? Yes, it is Happiness…!!! Will you please introspect for the minute and ask yourself the reason why we are working for day and night? To buy a house? To open your own business? To purchase a Car? These things will ultimately lead you to some form of joyous feeling called happiness… But will that feeling last lifetime?
The President of India has promulgated ordinance amending the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.This ordinance comes into force from 23rd October,2015. It is likely to be approved by the parliament in winter session and becomes part of the Arbitration Act, 1996 on its approval. In this article an attempt is made to analyze the amendments to appreciate the practicality or impracticality of these amendments.
In Union Budget 2015, a provision was made for levying a Swachh Bharat Cess (SB Cess) on all or any of the services, for the purposes of financing and promoting Swachh Bharat; to contribute for a clean India. The funds thus raised shall be used to build and provide proper toilet facility.
Whether SBC is chargeable on import or manufacture of goods, like done earlier for Education Cesses? No, SBC is not chargeable on goods. Unlike education cesses, the levy has been subjected only on taxable services. The rationale behind the differentiation between goods and services is not known, especially when dirt, pollution and environmental damages are mainly attributed to manufacturing activity, industrialization and relatively more directly related with goods than services. Hence, the levy is not based on principles of equality and the service sector has been discriminated and penalized for no fault of theirs. Yet, the parliament is constitutionally empowered to legislate and enforce the same.
