Standard Builders Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) ITAT held that reopening could not be done in a mechanical manner and on a mere change of opinion. Further, in case of reopening beyond 4 years, the revenue must allege that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. We find that the […]
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Inox Leisure Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) Supreme Court upheld the order of CESTAT and held that Service Tax is not payable by Appellant on Screening films in their multiplex on Revenue Sharing basis. Earlier CESTAT held that the appellant is not liable to pay Service Tax for Screening of […]
Venture Lighting India Vs ACIT / DCIT (ITAT Chennai) ITAT noted that the assessee is consistently following a policy and method of accounting admitting foreign exchange gain or loss on year-on-year basis. The assessee before us filed complete chart from assessment year 2010-11 to 2016-17 as noted above. Before us, the ld. Senior DR could […]
The appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of assessee and not to dismiss it for default.
ACIT Vs Shri. Mohamed Hassan (ITAT Chennai) Section 251(1)(a) of the Act does not provide power to the Ld. CIT(A) for setting aside the matter to the file of the Ld. AO. The power given to the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of section 251(1)(a) of the Act relates to confirming, reducing, enhancing or annulling the […]
V.R.S. Traders Vs Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) (Madras High Court) As per section 74 of CGST Act, 2017 the first step, if the revenue wants to initiate proceedings under Section 74, has to serve a notice to pay the amount of tax along with interest payable under Section 50 and a penalty equivalent to 15% […]
Explore the ITAT Delhi’s decision in Anant Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT case. Learn about the challenges, legal principles, and the directive to the assessee for a fresh hearing. Understand the implications of the share premium disallowance and the significance of complying with authorities’ notices.
ACIT Vs Benetton India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee submitted that the advances written off is not a capital loss as it is written off as security deposits against the shops obtained on rent. Such write off of security deposits was incidental to the business of the assessee and was for running its operations. […]
ITAT Mumbai held that for claiming exemption under section 54 Date on which possession is by the Assessee should be taken as the date of purchase and further section only require Assessee to purchase/Construct a residential house within the specified period and source of funds is quite irrelevant.
The Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ernakulam(Kerala) has sentenced Shri K.S. Chandrasekhar, then Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Cochin International Airport, Nedumbassery, Ernakulam(Kerala) to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,20,000/-.
