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 […]
Vekanteswara Electricals Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court) It is to be noted here that as per Section 38 (1)(a) of the APVAT Act, 2005, a refund is to be made within 90 days from the date of claim made by the dealer. As stated above, the claim was made nearly a […]
Microstrategy Singapore Pte Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Insofar as the issue of treating the amount received towards provisions of software related services as FTS, we have noticed that the Assessing Officer has not brought any cogent material on record to demonstrate that while providing the software related maintenance service, the assessee has made available […]
Since, the said amount pertains to late fee and service tax, therefore the provisions of TDS does not apply to the late fee and service tax, hence we delete the addition of Rs.10,48,125/-, made by the Assessing Officer.
Umang Sitani Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) During the year, the assessee has received Rs.2.58 Cr. on account of compulsory acquisition of his land comprising an amount of Rs.79.17 lacs on account of compensation and Rs.178.92 lacs on account of interest on land compensation, the fact of which is not in dispute. The AO treated the […]
CESTAT held that in case of PLA balance, it is not deposited as a duty but it is deposited as advance towards the duty. The PLA Amount takes the color of excise duty only when it is utilized for payment of duty on clearance of excisable goods. The unspent balance of PLA is only advance not duty therefore, Section 11B is not applicable.
Coastal Fertilisers Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) We note that the cash sum of Rs. 94,50,000/- was deposited in the bank account held with Union Bank of India, account no. 495601010033544 on 16.11.2016. This date of deposit falls in post-demonetization period. On 08.11.2016 demonetization scheme was announced scrapping of currencies in the Rs. 1,000/& Rs. […]
