"09 January 2021" Archive

Consider extension of Income Tax Due dates: Gujarat HC to UOI

All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court)

All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) High Court held that respondent No.1 – Union of India, Ministry of Finance should immediately look into the issue, more particularly, the representation dated 12th October 2020 at Annexure : I of the paper book (page 108) and take an appropriate decision [&...

Read More

Appeal v Review v SCN: Chaos created by DGFT

Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS) was introduced under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-20 with the objective to promote and encourage the export of services from India. Under this scheme, the exporters of notified services are rewarded at the rates specified under Appendix 3D. The incentive is provided in the form of a duty [&h...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Income Tax Benefits/Deductions on Second Home Loan

From FY 19-20 onwards in the Finance Act, 2019, government has allowed a major relief u/s 23 and 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by allowing the taxpayers to declare in their tax return the value of their ‘Two’ houses as self –occupied, on a NIL basis. That means, now a person can enjoy […]...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Exercise Section 83 power only to Protect Interest of Revenue: HC

Primarily Section 83 of CGST Act 2017 permits to attach property. Property means an asset which may be movable, immovable, tangible, intangible or in the form of some instrument....

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

GST TRAN-I- SC dismisses plea on merit & also for delay in Filing

Nodal Officer Delhi State GST Department Vs Aagman Services Private Limited & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)

Nodal Officer Delhi State GST Department Vs Aagman Services Private Limited & Ors. (Supreme Court) 1. There is delay of 238 days in filing the Special Leave Petition which has not been satisfactorily explained. Even otherwise, we have gone through the Special Leave Petition and do not find any merit in the same. 2. The […]...

Read More

Jewellery as per CBDT instruction may be treated as unexplained investment

V.G.P.Ravidas Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)

V.G.P.Ravidas Vs Asst.CIT (Madras High Court) The Board Instruction dated 11.5.1994 stipulates the circumstances under which excess gold jewellery or ornaments could be seized and where it need not be seized. It does not state that it should not be treated as unexplained investment in jewellery. In this case, the Original Authority has co...

Read More

Explained Jewellery will not form part of Jewellery allowed by CBDT Circular

N. Roja Vs ACIT (ITAT Cuttack)

N. Roja Vs ACIT (ITAT Cuttack) We find that the AO made addition on account of unexplained investment in gold and jewellery of 2417.290 grams as found and seized during the course of search in the residential premises and the Locker No.75/4 & 145/2 of the assessee at Indian Overseas Bank, Rayagada. During the course […]...

Read More

CBDT circular lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery & ornaments

CIT Vs Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (Gujarat High Court)

Although Circular has been issued for the purpose of non- seizure of jewellery during the course of search, the basis for the same recognizes customs prevailing in Hindu Society. In the circumstances, unless the revenue shows anything to the contrary, it can safely be presumed that the source to the extent of the jewellery as stated in th...

Read More

Assessee is expected to explain source for acquisition of jewellery

Ramalingam Vs Income Tax officer (ITAT Chennai)

A. Ramalingam Vs Income Tax officer (ITAT Chennai) The exemption claimed by the assessee under CBDT circular is only for seizure of gold jewellery during the course of search operation. As rightly submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative, it does not absolve the assessee from explaining the source for acquisition of such jewellery...

Read More

Jewellery prescribed limit treated explained Revenue shows anything contrary

Divya Devi Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Divya Devi Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Jewellery upto prescribed limit must be treated as explained unless Revenue shows anything to contrary Though it is true that the CBDT Instruction No. 1916, dt. 11th may, 1996 lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments. In the course of search, the same takes into account the […]...

Read More

Search Posts by Date

January 2021
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031