Drillmec S.P. A Vs Oil India Ltd. (Guwahati High Court) HC observed that provisions contained in Article 20 of the Constitution of India and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 cannot be readily read into and applied to as the terms and conditions of a non-statutory contract. FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF […]
Rakesh Kumar Tibra Vs Commissioner of Central Goods (CESTAT Delhi) In view of the Final Order of this Tribunal dated 3.5.2019, in the case of Lucky Tobacco Co. Ltd. and Others, arising from the same impugned order-in-original, we find that the cause of action against these appellants also does not survive. In this view of […]
Section 194S mandates a person, who is responsible for paying to any resident any sum by way of consideration for transfer of a virtual digital asset (VDA), to deduct an amount equal to 1% of such sum as income tax thereon.
Swaraj Builders Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur) Assessee had failed to comply with the mandate of law and had failed to deduct tax at source u/s.194A of the Act on the aforesaid amount of interest payment of Rs.7,46,025/-. Accordingly, the A.O had disallowed the amount of Rs.7,46,025/-u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act which was thereafter, upheld by the […]
RMA & Associates Vs Principal Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The appellant was engaged in providing chartered accountant services. The dispute in the present appeal is regarding the non-payment of service tax on the amount representing reimbursement of expenses like conveyance, travelling and mobile expenses. The issue, in respect of reimbursable expenses has been […]
Global Waste Management Cell Pvt. Ltd. Vs Centralised Processing Centre (ITAT Mumbai) The facts in the present case shows that form number 3CD where the statement of particulars required to be furnished u/s 44AB of the income tax act 1961 are prepared by the assessee and is not an audit report. Form number 3CA is […]
As section 50C applies only to a capital asst, being land or building or both, it cannot be made applicable to lease rights in a land.
Col. Ranjan Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee has withdrawn a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank on 05.06.2015. I notice that the assessee has withdrawn cash in small amounts in subsequent period also. Since the assessee is an aged person and retired from army, it is quite possible that […]
For invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of income tax act, the assessment order passed by assessing officer should be erroneous so far as prejudicial to interest of revenue.
Amritha Raj gets a second chance at appeal in ITAT Bangalore. Non-appearance costs imposed but opportunity granted to present case before CIT(A)
