Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
The appellant paid the duty with interest even prior to issuance of Show Cause Notice. If that is so, the authorities had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings at all and consequently the question of payment of penalty would not arise at all.
The F.I.R. states the number of Santro car. Merely one of the witnesses has said that he has given the deposition by signing the document without reading and he was not much aware about which car has caused the accident, is not that much fatal.
That the petitioner as a transgender has every right to choose her gender and accordingly, she has submitted her application for grant of family pension under Section 56(1) of Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992.
In this case the valuation was done based on the statement of assessee’s son who is no way connected with assessee’s business except his occasional visits. Therefore, the statement of Sh. Rajat Jain has no evidentiary value.
Government Corporation is like any other assessee before the tax authority and cannot be allowed to plead that on this count it be given a preferential treatment and be allowed to escape the responsibilities of representing their case before the other governmental authorities including the tax authorities.
We hold that since the receipt of interest is intrinsically linked to the primary activity of allotment of plots in the industrial park, it is hereby held that the interest is derived from the eligible business and thus, eligible for the purpose of direction u/s. 80 IA.
Based on the merits of the case on a beneficial note we are of the opinion that since the GPA holder namely Sri. Yarlagadda Ravi Chandra Prasad has disclosed the income from the sale of plots gifted by his sister in his return of income and discharged his liability of taxes on returned income, in his return of income, the same cannot be taxed once again in the hands of the assessee.
The narration of the professional fee bill by the payee is not at all material in rejecting the professional fee bill.
In the present case, section 35F of the Excise Act, as it stood prior to 06.08.2014, provides for payment of interest only if the pre-deposit amount is not refunded within a period three months from the date of communication of the order to adjudicating authority.
Held that if assessee is not eligible for credit in the year under consideration then credit for the same should be allowed in the year in which tax has been deducted by the deductor.
