JKG associates Pvt. Ltd vs union of India & Ors (Calcutta High Court) Petitioner challenges the impugned action imposing the aforesaid penalty on the ground that the same is not sustainable for the reason of non-compliance of the formalities under Regulation 17 by which respondent Commissioner of Customs was required to issue a notice in […]
Held that impugned expenditure cannot be held to be capital and it is not in the nature of personal expenditure or for any violation of law. Disallowance of CSR expenditure unjustified.
Asst. CIT Vs Renaissance Services BV (ITAT Mumbai) Held that the receipts of the assessee from training services and computer reservation services including reimbursements shall not be chargeable to tax both under the Act as well as under the Treaty. Facts- The assessee is a company incorporated in the Netherlands and is tax resident of […]
The Adjudicating Authority of ED has adjudicated a SCN issued to M/s Amnesty India International Pvt. Ltd.(AIIPL) and its CEO Shri Aakar Patel for contravention of the provisions of FEMA and imposed penalty of Rs. 51.72 Crore and Rs 10 Crore respectively. Enforcement Directorate Press Release 08.07.2022 The Adjudicating Authority of Directorate of Enforcement (ED) […]
ED has carried out searches at 48 locations across the country belonging to VIVO Mobiles India Private Limited and its 23 associated companies under PMLA, 2002. So far, 119 bank accounts with gross balance of Rs. 465 Crore including FDs of 66 Crore of Vivo India, 2kg gold bars, and Rs. 73 Lakh cash have been seized.
Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that PCIT cannot revise an assessment order under sections 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of issues already covered during assessment. The law is very well settled that revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act could be done only in […]
The Clause 44 of the Form 3CD is effective for Assessment Year 2022-23 i.e. for the Financial Year 2021-22 because the compliance of this clause was kept in abeyance till 31/03/2022 but for all the reports submitted after that date the clause is mandatory.
ITO Vs Jitendra Shanabhai Patel (ITAT Ahmedabad) CIT(A) observed that there was no large number of purchase and sale of land by the assessee. In fact, the acquisition of agricultural land owned by the assessee was done by the Government and thus Section 10(37) of the Act are attracted. As regards consideration of the rural […]
Commissioner of Central TAX Vs ABB Limited (Karnataka High Court) Undisputed facts of the case are, as recorded in paragraph 6 of the show cause notice, it was issued based on the balance sheet for the year ending 2008. Thus, the contentions of the Revenue that respondents trading activity was not known to the department […]
Technova Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) Refusal of SAD to the Appellant-importer by the Refund Sanctioning Authority that has received concurrence of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the second round of litigation is assailed in this appeal. The gist of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is that goods imported and goods […]
