"13 August 2022" Archive - Page 5

CPC must rectify mistake apparent from records despite non-filing of revised Return

Markand Induprasad Bhatt Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

Markand Induprasad Bhatt Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) However, we note that the power of rectification u/s 154 of the Act can be exercised only if there is a mistake apparent from the record which is one of the pre-condition meaning thereby the mistake should be apparent, obvious from the record. In other words, in order […]...

Read More

Mere Non-response from creditors cannot be treated as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

Royal Rubber Works Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

Royal Rubber Works Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Undisputedly, the addition based on which the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was on account of sundry creditors. While deciding the quantum appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal has deleted the major part of the addition, accepting assessee’s submission that suc...

Read More

Reasonable time limit for issue of notice u/s 201(1)/201(1A) is 4 years

Adabala Manmohan Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

ITAT held that Reasonable time limit for issue of notice u/s 201(1)/201(1A) is 4 years and Assessee cannot be taxed for non-deduction of TDS U/s. 195  if non-resident discharged obligation with respect to payment of capital gains tax...

Read More

Assessment Order against Non-Existing Company is not legally sustainable

Marlabs Innovations Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)

ITAT Held that, since assessee ceased to be in existence as on the date when Ld. AO passed the impugned order of assessment, assessment so framed is not sustainable in the eye of law....

Read More

Section 54/54F exemption cannot be disallowed merely for closure of capital gain account without NOC of AO

Ramesh Chander Nijhawan Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Closer of capital gain account without NOC of AO, the broad provisions and compliance of law surpass the mere default in not taking prior permission of ITO before closer of account...

Read More

GST Registration cannot be cancelled without Hearing Opportunity with specific date & time

Jinesh Associates Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court)

Jinesh Associates Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Proviso to Section 29(2) of Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act specifically observes that there shall be no cancellation of GST registration without giving an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, during the course of proceedings relating to cancellation of ...

Read More

Trademark Trolls in India

A trade mark is defined in the Trademark Act, 1999 under section 2(1)(i)(viii)(z). It states that a trade mark means a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others. That mark/sign can be words, letters, numerals, coloured marks, 3D signs, [&he...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

How to report under Clause 44 of Form 3CD Tax Audit Report

Clause 44 of Form 3CD Tax Audit Report which required information regarding expenses on the basis of applicability of GST....

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax | ,

Replacement of machinery parts is revenue expenditure

Ambica Alloys & Steel India Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

ITAT Held that replacement of parts of an existing machinery in the course of their working will be a revenue expenditure....

Read More

Addition of opening balance of unsecured loan u/s 68 is unsustainable

ITO Vs Rahul kantilal Shah (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT Held that addition on the basis of the opening balance of unsecured loan treating the same as current year transaction by invoking section 68 of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable....

Read More

Search Posts by Date

November 2022
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930