That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of 77,845/- made by the AO in the appellant’s income on allegation of unexplained cash, solely on the basis of statement of the appellant recorded during the course of survey u/s. 133A of the Act, without considering and appreciating the explanation with evidences offered by the appellant.
ITO Vs Pritendra C. Jhaveri (ITAT Mumbai) Since the expression ‘held by the assessee’ is not defined under section 48, the same has to be understood as defined under Explanation 1(i)(b) to section 2(42A) which provides that in determining the period for which an asset is held by assessee under a gift or will the […]
Heddle Knowledge (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Mumbai) The fact that the amended Sec. 140A(3) w.e.f. 01.04.1989 does not envisage any penalty for non-payment of self-assessment tax, the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying the impugned penalty by making recourse to Sec. 221(1) of the Act. Before parting, we may again emphasize […]
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 the Central Board of Indirect Taxes fixes a monetary limit of Rs 2,50,000/- below which appeal shall not be filed with the Commissioner (A).
Specific provisions related to Agent under GST Act: ♣ Definition of Agent: (Section 2(5) of CGST Act) Agent means the person who are engaged in supply of goods or services / recipient of goods or services on the behalf of others that’s say principal of such goods / services. Agent includes broker, commission agent, an […]
Ashok Kumar Dutta Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Notice u/s 274 read with section 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The word maintained and retained has been used in section 271A of the Act .If assesseee fails to maintain or fails to retain such books of accounts and other documents . The Income tax authority […]
Since assessee had invested the sale consideration in construction of a residential house within three years from the date of transfer, deduction under section 54F could not be denied under section 54F on the ground that he did not deposit the said amount in capital gain account scheme before the due date prescribed under section 139(1).
The appellant has a Custom Broker Licence. The Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur by issue of the impugned order, rejected the application dated 26.02.2015 filed for renewal of their Customs Broker Licence.
ITAT Mumbai in case of ACIT v/s M/s WTI Advanced technology held that tax is to deducted u/s 194C for outsourcing of any service which do not require skilled staff.
Division Bench of this Court has already found that the goods detained under a detention notice issued in terms of the CGST/SGST Act cannot be released unless a security equal to the amount demanded is insisted from the assessee
