Explore the Customs Classification dispute between E-Factor Adventure Tourism and Commissioner of Customs. Analysis of boat usage, registration, and the crucial CESTAT Chennai decision.
The issue in the present case relates whether the assessment order has been passed by Ld. AO without making inquiries or verification with respect to the deduction/exemption claimed under section 54 of the Act as discussed above and hence the assessment is erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and thus requiring revision by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act.
Penalty was not to be imposed on assessee as demand did not form part of the notice dated 13.08.2020 and opportunity of hearing was not provided to assessee.
Read about the ITAT Ahmedabad’s ruling in ITO vs. Yagnesh Dayabhai Vyas, where disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deemed unjust when TDS was duly deducted and paid before the return filing deadline.
Explore the ITAT Mumbai decision in Abacus International Pte Ltd. vs. DDIT, where notional interest income on interest-free loans was assessed and its impact on penalty u/s. 271(1)(c).
There is no condition in section 32 that depreciation on plant and machinery is allowable only if they are used in the factory for manufacturing/production process. Assets like air conditioners, telephones, Samsung tab, office equipments and canteen equipments are in the nature of plant and machinery. Depreciation under section 32 is allowed.
Explore the U Toll Corporation Ltd vs ACIT case (ITAT Varanasi) on unsecured loans. Analysis of loan discrepancies, cash deposits, and the ITAT decision.
The undisputed fact is that none appeared before the ld. CIT(A) who was convinced that the assessee did not want to pursue the appeal and, therefore, drew support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee and Other [supra].
Form No. 1, Form No. 2 and Form No. 2A is required to be signed, verified and furnished by the class of person responsible as defined in the Securities Transaction Rules 2004
The Respondent has not disputed the findings of the DGAP regarding method of computation of profiteering and the amount worked out by him. As such, the Authority finds no reason to differ from the above-detailed computation of profiteering in the DGAP Report or the methodology adopted and hence, the Authority determines the profiteered amount for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018, in the instant case, as Rs. 1,42,45,741/-, for the project Sports Ville.
