Understanding the financial hardship of blocking ITC under Rule 86(A) for taxpayers. Learn about the implications and challenges faced by taxpayers in this scenario.
Expenses have been disallowed on estimate basis. The basis of such disallowances is said to be incompleteness of the bills and vouchers. However, the Assessing Officer has not pointed out as to which bills and vouchers were found to be wanting.
CESTAT held that the value of scrap arising during the process of manufacture by the job worker is not included in the value of the goods cleared by the job worker to the principal manufacturer for the purpose of levying excise duty.
Hashesh V. Patel (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) ITAT consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to give one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. However, keeping in view the casual and negligent attitude of the assessee especially during the course of assessment proceedings, ITAT impose a cost of […]
Jaya Publications Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) We find that the assessee has purchased Computers for business purposes and claimed depreciation thereon. In support, the relevant invoices were produced. The only reason to disallow the depreciation is the conclusion of Ld. AO that the use of computers for business was not established. However, this conclusion is […]
Merely because a note was given in the balance sheet of the appellant company that the service recipient’s company is an Associates Company of the appellant does not alter the legal status of independent entity of both the companies.
The Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) had chosen to disallow the entire expenditure without appreciating the fact that no income of hire charges can be earned without incurring expenditure on salaries and fuel etc. This approach of lower authorities is most unreasonable and arbitrary.
Section 200A deals with processing of statements of tax deducted at source. Clause (c) of section 200A(1) was inserted by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01-06-2015 providing for the levy of fee u/s.234E of the Act.
Rajendra Venkat Reddy Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer sought to levy penalty in respect of addition of Rs.15,00,000/- being unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts held by the appellant. The addition was purportedly made u/s […]
Toshiba Corporation Vs CIT (Delhi High Court) Admittedly, while deciding the stay application, the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have to consider three primary issues i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. In the present case, the petitioner has not claimed financial hardship. Accordingly, the third factor i.e. irreparable injury is not […]
