Bombay High Court in a bail application relating to money laundering matter held that the material on record does indicate that the Applicant has been suffering from multiple ailments. Further, the Applicant appears to have roots in society. The possibility of fleeing away from justice seems remote. Accordingly, bail granted
The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of ‘change of opinion’ is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re¬opening the assessment, review would take place.
Latish Chandar Samnani Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present case is with respect to disallowance of freight for expenses. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the expenses at 20% on adhoc basis which was restricted to 10% by CIT(A). Before us, it is assessee’s submissions that if the addition is restricted to 5% […]
Assessee had not disputed that he is common shareholder in both companies, however, contended that provisions of section 2(22)(e) have no application, inasmuch as, loan advanced was in ordinary course of its business.
Madras High Court held that interference with Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground of inequitable nature or unfair advantage not justified
ITAT Delhi held that both support services and reimbursement of expenses are not in nature of Fees for Included Services (FIS) under India – USA DTAA and hence not taxable in India.
ITAT Mumbai held that in the absence of any evidence on allegation that some person provided the entry to convert unaccounted money for getting benefit of LTCG in the grab of exempt LTCG u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act the same cannot be accepted.
Orissa High Court held that notice issued u/.s 148A of the Income Tax Act clearly demonstrates that the Assessing Authority had in possession of information about deposit of cash in the banks and hence the same is tenable in law
NCLAT held that when judgment is pronounced without reasoning, it is not a judgment in the eye of law for the reason that the requirement of reasoning either by Original Court or Appellate Authority is to convey the mind of the judge while deciding such an issue before the Tribunal.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that extended period of limitation can be invoked only when there is willful suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of service tax.
