Even though assessee had made payments to related parties, yet in view of fact that there was no material on record to demonstrate that payment made was excessive and unreasonable having regard to market rate, disallowance made under section 40A(2) by AO was to be deleted.
Before penalizing the assessee by making him pay interest, the principles of natural justice ought to be complied with before making a demand for interest under sub section (1) of Section 50 of the GST Act. Consequence of demanding interest and non-payment thereof is very drastic.
It was held that whether the purchases were bogus or whether the parties from whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus was essentially a question of fact. When the Tribunal had concluded that the assessee did make the purchase, as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered by such purchase but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax.
Whether department is correct in charging service tax on various services provided to film distributors by assessee without charging any consideration.
Sunita Palta & Ors. Vs. Kit Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court) Non-Executive Directors are, therefore, persons who are not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the running of the company and are not in charge of and not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.’ Admittedly, the petitioners are neither the […]
Amount paid as security deposit was taxable only on the year of termination of an agreement between the assessee and the dealer/distributor. Hence AO was not justified in treating the deposit as income each year irrespective of whether the dealership was terminated or not.
All India Federation of Tax Practitioners Vs Union of India (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of […]
The Petitioner relied upon Section 9 and Section 11 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and submitted that the Respondent should examine the trademark applications in an efficient and proper manner in order to ensure that none of the marks which are brought before the Respondent are similar to that which are already registered and not clear for advertisement.
The MCA has issued the Companies (Auditor’s Report) Order, 2020 (CARO 2020), on 25th February 2020 in supersession of the Companies (Auditor’s Report) Order, 2016. Applicable from: Audit of financial statements for the financial year commencing on or after 1st April 2019. Based on the government’s objective to strengthen the corporate governance framework and to […]
An assessee aggrieved by an order passed by the Assessing Officer(AO) may file an appeal against the same, to the DyCIT (A) or the CIT(A). As an alternative remedy the assessee may prefer an application to the CIT for revising the orders passed by the AO. A remedy U/s 264 is contemplated by the Legislature only to meet a situation faced by an aggrieved assessee
