In exercise of sub-clause (ii) of clause (D) of Explanation to clause (6) of rule 114F of Income-tax Rules, 1962, CBDT, hereby specifies following jurisdictions for the purposes of the said sub-clause, namely:—
Para 4.32(i) and Para 6.01(a) of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 are amended to allow export of findings like posts, push backs, locks which help in collating the jewellery pieces together, containing gold of 3 carats and above up to a maximum limit of 22 carats only from domestic tariff area and EOU/ EHTP/STP/BTP Units.
Pr. CIT Vs. Vijay Infrastructure Ltd. (Allahabad High Court) Since the time limit for filing the revised return had not expired during the relevant year, therefore, claim for deduction under section 80-IA if not made earlier could have been made in the revised return. Once it could have been claimed in the revised return under […]
It is also directed that if the petitioner complies with Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the goods detained shall be released to him forthwith.
These cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the revenue are directed against the order of CIT(A)-7, Mumbai dated 27-12-2011 and it pertains to AY 2006-07. Since both the appeals pertains to same assessee, for the sake of convenience, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
CIT (TDS) Vs M/s Mumbai Metropolitan Regional (Bombay High Court) Section 194LA of the I.T.Act, 1961 inter alia deals with payment of compensation on acquisition of certain immovable property. Section 194LA of the I.T.Act, 1961 was brought into force with effect from 1st October, 2004. Section 194L of the I.T.Act, 1961 deals with payment of […]
DCIT Vs Esteem Textiles P. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Evidently, AO on the basis of a letter written by the company, which was returned by the assessee by putting its signature and seal in confirmation of the accounts, had framed the assessment under section 153C. However, the said document could not be said to belong to […]
Against the order dated 30.11.2017 the petitioner has an statutory efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 109 A of the Rules.
Petitioner has equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the penalty order under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. It is left open to the petitioner to take recourse to the statutory remedy available to him under the law. We are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage.
RK Overseas Vs UOI & Ors (Allahabad High Court) On the conjoint reading of sections 107 and 121 of the Act it is thus apparent that though all orders passed under the Act by the adjudicating authority are appealable but not the ones which have been specifically excluded from the purview of appeal under section […]
