The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground that the Petitioner was issued with a notice under Section 148A of the Income Act, 1961 on 20.03.2022 and that the Petitioner has also replied to the same on 25.03.2022, which has also been acknowledged. However, the impugned order has wrongly recorded that the Petitioner has not responded.
Parveen Mehta Vs Vishal Joshi (Punjab & Haryana High Court) HC held that undisputed signatures of the respondent on the cheque in itself is not sufficient for conviction under Section 138 of the Act. One of the ingredient for succeeding under Section 138 of the Act is that the cheque was issued for discharge of […]
In re ULCCS Calicut City Infrastructure Development Private Ltd (GST AAR Kerala) it is evident that the service rendered by the applicant as per the concession agreement is a continuous supply of works contract services and the annuity is in sum and substance is consideration for the works contract services rendered. Since the cost of […]
In this case there are two or more individual supplies, supplied in conjunction with each other by a taxable person for a single price, which does not constitute a composite supply. Thereby, the supply satisfies all the pre-requisites to be termed as a Mixed Supply.
ITAT held that Referral commission paid to doctors in Violation of the professional conduct is Not allowable as Business Expenditure.
Mr. Mohan Sambhaji Jagthap Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Appreciating the material on record it can be observed that the Tax Authorities have not doubted the assertion of the Assessee that the father in law was resident of Canada or he held land. When this fact is admitted, the Revenue needed to conduct some enquiry and […]
Sumo Advertises Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) A perusal of the assessment order reveals that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Id. AO asked the appellant to establish the credits appearing in its books of account. However, no details were filed by the latter. As per the provisions of section 68, the […]
Mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, would not, ipso facto, amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of Income
Provisions of Section 194C are not applicable on payments to agencies like HUDA on behalf of the State Government. The imposition of penalty under Section 271C was consequently found to be unsustainable in the absence of default of Section 194C of the Act.
Sunil M. Bhide Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Pune) It is seen from the penalty order that the assessee pleaded before the AO that he started construction of a commercial building on his plot. The construction work was halted because of paucity of funds. The said plot of land along with part construction was leased out […]
