Dwarka Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Facts- The assessee has challenged the order dated 24/03/2017 passed by CIT(A), wherein an addition of Rs. 18,00,00,000/- made u/s 68 of Income Tax Act by the A.O has been confirmed by the CIT(A) for AY 2014-15. Notably, the assessee Company has been struck off vide Notification […]
Ishwar Dewllings Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Lucknow) Facts- The AO vide notice u/s 154 dated 02/05/2018 proposed rectification of the order passed u/s 143(3) by including profit on sale of agricultural land in the computation of book profits u/s 115JB. Thereafter, AO dropped the proceedings initiated u/s 154 vide order dated 14/06/2018. However, the […]
SVS Guarding Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Facts- The only addition in dispute in this appeal is regarding the additions amounting to total of Rs. 29,52,674/- made u/s 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act. These payments by way of employees’ contribution to ESI/Provident Fund were deposited by the assessee after the specified date prescribed […]
Held that the mandate of Section 220(6) of the IT Act makes it very clear that once an appeal is filed within time in the prescribed format, the assessee will not be deemed as an ‘assessee in default’.
Raghav Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) Facts- The appellant is a manufacturer of synthetic and blended textile yarn made of duty paid raw material viz., polyester staple fiber or polyester viscose staple fibre. According to the appellant, as per the Government schemes, a manufacturer can either export the finished product without […]
AO is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty notice.
When assessee collected the service tax from its customers and had not remitted the Government Exchequer, the same had to be disallowed u/s 43B.
Suresh Chand Gupta Vs State of Govt of NCT Delhi (Delhi High Court) Facts- The Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) filed a criminal complaint under Section 132 and 135 (1)(a) of the Customs Act, before the learned Trial Court. The complaint stated that intelligence reports have been received that M/s Elgin Electronics, of which petitioner […]
Souvenir Developers India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Any amount retained by a toll collector while undertaking toll-collection activity did not attract service tax since the said activity did not constitute a service rendered by a commission agent and thus it did not fall within the purview of a ‘business […]
It is brought to the notice of this Court that Aadhar Cards are not being issued to sex workers as they were unable to produce proof of their residence. We had issued notice to UIDAI and sought its suggestions in respect of waiving the requirement of proof of residence for the sex workers, to enable them to get an identity by the issuance of Aadhar cards.
