Discover the 6 important aspects of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. Understand the impact of these regulations on Indian banks and their activities.
Held that consideration paid by the assessee in excess of its value of tangible assets was rightly classified as goodwill the same is eligible for depreciation
Yashraj Containeurs Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Revenue sought to include the TCS collected by the appellant from the buyer of scrap in the assessable value for charging Excise Duty. The said TCS is collected and deposited to the income tax department in terms of Section 206C of Income Tax Act, 1961. From […]
Astral Limited Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the present case as given above the product imported by the appellant consisted of pre-dominantly of Butadiene which is an olefin therefore, in terms of Chapter note 4 to chapter 39 the product is correctly classifiable under CTH 390290000. The Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) have not […]
Bayer Vapi Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the sanctioning authority appropriated the demand of Rs.4,50,572/-from the sanctioned rebate claim, the said appropriated amount is towards penalty and interest in a demand case whereas, the appellant had deposited the entire duty amount. When the appropriation was done against the demand […]
Pratibha Industries Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that in case of parallel proceedings under Income-tax Act, 1961 and IBC, 2016, the IBC has an overriding effect over the provisions of the Income-tax Act which has been decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd in […]
Shri. Vardhan Vishwanath Vijaya Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) In so far as the credit for taxes paid in US is concerned, one of the requirements is that the assessee has to file Form 67 which was filed before the AO only after the date of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. Filing of Form […]
Matter of classification is complex. According, held that there is no scope for indicting the individuals in these proceedings for deliberate misdeclaration. Penalty not imposed as the role of the individuals in the misdeclaration of stores and bunkers is not evident in the impugned order.
DCIT Vs Egberts India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) From the facts, it emerges that the property at Anna Nagar has been let out by the assessee and the rental income has been offered and assessed as Income from House Property. Under this head, the assessee is entitled to claim statutory deduction of 30% and interest […]
Mahadevan HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) We noted that the individual Smt. Bhavani Mahadevan had purchased the land at Plot No.94, ARN Nagar, Korattur by way of sale deed dated 14.07.1994 and land at Plot No.II, VGN Avenue, Sennerkuppam Village by way of sale deed dated 03.08.1995. Shri R. Mahadevan had purchased the land at […]
