Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) It is submitted on behalf of appellant that appellant is an SEZ Unit. The chief contention of the Department for the part-rejection of the refund claim relates to service tax amount paid by the appellant on ocean freight services which is not included/covered under the […]
On behalf of department, application is opposed submitting that accused have utilized and availed fraudulent ineligible ITC to the tune of Rs 15 crates as such committed a serous economic offence.
Vedvan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The solitary ground is directed against the addition of Rs.94,33,788/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Brief facts as noted from the impugned order are that an addition u/s 36(1)(va) has been made by the DCIT, CPC, Bangalore on account of delay in depositing the […]
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Upon perusal of assessment order under consideration, it is quite evident that an order was passed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. One of the reasons to reopen the case was the allegation of Ld. AO that income from assets given on lease, though […]
DCIT Vs Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Expenditure incurred by the assessee for construction of road under BOT contract by Govt. of India have given rise to an intangible asset as defined under explanation 3(b) read with section 32(1)(iii) of the Act, assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation on such asset at specified […]
Fenner (India) Limited Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) In the light of the fact that the assessee has already availed the benefit under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending. At the same time, the interest of the assessee in the event the order […]
In this case CIT(E),held that the trust was a Members’ association and all the activities were limited to its members and not to general public at large so as to fall within the clause “advancement of any other object of general public utility”. He, therefore, refused the registration against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
Harbux Singh Sidhu Vs Department of Income Tax (Delhi High Court) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent had vide 19th April, 2016 requested the Bank officials to verify the transaction of the Petitioner by which it had made a payment of Rs. 6,50,000/- towards payment of Advance Tax for FY 2000-01. He […]
CIT Vs P. Sumathi (Madras High Court) On facts, the Court found that the assessee therein had entered into a contract to supply vehicles to M/s. Mahindra and many other companies under written contract on various dates and only to perform the obligation under the said contracts, he had hired vehicles from the sub-contractors under […]
DCIT Vs Sutham Electric Ltd. (ITAT Pune) The solitary issue in the present case relates to the allowability of the expenditure incurred on development of Tools and Designs which are used in the business and manufacturing of automotive switch gears of Rs.3,75,00,000/- as revenue expenditure. This expenditure was shown as deferred revenue expenditure written off […]
