These appeals are against an order dated 31-3-2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Bench, Chennai, allowing the appeals, being I.T.A.Nos.262 and 263/Mds/2015, in relation to the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2012-2013 filed by the respondent Revenue and restoring the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Sections 271E and 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the IT Act).
Origins Build-Tech Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahemdabad) adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope of permissible adjustments contemplated under section 200A. This intimation is an appealable order under section 246A(a), and, therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have examined legality of the adjustment made under this intimation in […]
A credit information report is a detailed record of a person’s credit history that includes his identity information, loans and credit card accounts that are opened in his name, payment information, current balances, defaults if any, and enquiries made on the credit. All the member banks and financial institutions registered with the credit bureau, report […]
Bhojison Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) We notice that the compensation was not received as a result of termination of advantages associated with development rights but was claimed to be received to relinquish the rights of the assessee to sue against the vendor of the land. The assessee has received the compensation amount […]
M/s Shri Mahavir Industries Vs CGST (CESTAT Delhi) A proprietary unit is an individual legal entity and any refunds due to the proprietary unit cannot be adjusted or appropriated towards the demand which may be pending recovery against an another independent legal entity, of which the proprietor of unit is a partner. It has to […]
CIT Vs Sinochem India co. Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The purchase of intellectual property rights by the assess are not disputed. Consideration paid is also not disputed. The nature and character of the intellectual property rights, as noticed in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), are again not disputed. The intellectual […]
It was clear that despite knowing the fact that Managing Director (MD) was not allowed under the CWA Act, the Respondent had accepted the position of MD and also protecting the same.
Whether following two categories of products will be classifiable under Entry 24 of Schedule IV of Notification No. 1/2017Central Taxes (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 liable to CGST at 14% or Entry 97 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017 – Central Taxes (Rate) liable to CGST at 9%?
Kind attention is drawn to Circular No. 52/2017 dated 22.12.2017 whereby the Board had prescribed the procedure for facilitating and monitoring transshipment of consignments sealed under ECTS at ICDs/CFSs and destined for export to Nepal or Bangladesh.
Origins Build-Tech Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Issue- The learned CIT(A)-8 is unjustified & erred in law by confirming the imposing of late filing levy by ACIT [CPC-TDS) of Rs.30800/- u/s 234E determined to be payable by processing TDS statement u/s 200A, without issuing show cause notice. The late fee u/s 234E is penal in nature […]
