Soul Jewels Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find that assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading in diamonds. The original assessment was completed for the A.Y.2007-08 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act determining the total income at Rs.56,34,520/- vide order dated 27/12/2011. This assessment was sought to be reopened by issue […]
Chen Hsui Yun Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Delhi High Court) In the instant case, according to the respondent, amount of USD 90000 was recovered from the petitioner which was around Rs.65,00,000/- in Indian currency. The petitioner in the instant case is a lady, aged about 54 years, and there is nothing on record to […]
DCIT Vs Cache Properties Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) Fact that the property let out is a commercial complex is not sufficient to treat the rental income therefrom as ‘Business Income’. The tests to be applied are; 1) the tenure of the lease, 2) the objects of the company; 3) the intention of the company; and […]
As the law required that an enquiry be held under Section 202 of the Code if the accused stayed outside the Court’s jurisdiction, such enquiry had to be undertaken in clear terms and the Trial Court, after making such enquiry whether by taking evidence on affidavit or by restricting the enquiry to examination of documents or not, was required to decide whether there were sufficient grounds to issue process against the accused.
While recording of the reasons to reopen an assessment, AO was required to form only prima Facie opinions about escapement of income as he was not making an assessment but taking a first baby step for making the assessment by forming a reasonable belief that whether the claim of assessee should be tested in reassessment proceedings or not. Thus, there was no infirmity in the action of AO that reasoned escapement of income by claiming deduction of Rs. 1 crore u/s 54EC.
Case No. AD(SSR)–11/2021Initiation of sunset review of anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Ammonium Nitrate originating in or exported from Russia, Georgia and Iran.
Revenue ought to have brought evidence on record by bringing comparative quotations to prove the fact that the lease rent paid in the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs per month to the trustees was excessive or unreasonable and beyond the fair market value thereon. Since ssessee placed on record that the market value of the land was Rs.13,03,76,400/- as per the registered lease deed and the payment of lease rent of Rs.24 lakhs works out to hardly 1.86% thereon. Hence, it could be safely concluded that the rent paid by assessee-trust to the trustees was not excessive or unreasonable.
Competition Commission of India had allowed to investigate against Flipkart and Amazon for alleged involvement in Anti-competitive Agreements. An order directing investigation be supported by ‘some reasoning’ (CCI Vs. SAIL para 97), which the Commission had fulfilled. Therefore, it would be unwise to prejudge the issues raised by Amazon and Flipkart in these writ petitions at this stage and scuttle the investigation.
Tax Bar Association Jodhpur (Rajasthan) has written a letter to DC (Administration), Jodhpur and requested for extension of Date for Phase-I of ‘Rajasthan Amnesty Scheme-2021’ from 30th April 2021 to 31st July 2021. Date: 09/06/2021 To, DC (Administration) Jodhpur Hon’ble Sir, Greetings of the Day! Sub: Request to extend of Date for Phase-I of “Amnesty […]
Tax Practitioners’ Association, Indore – Team TPA has released Advisory on Section 194Q (TDS on Goods) and TDS on non Income Tax Return Filers filers. Full Text of the Advisory is as follows:- TDS on purchase of Goods – Section 194Q (Applicable w.e.f. 1st July, 2021) Finance Act 2021 has introduced new provision which requires […]
