The DC notes that inspection notice was served on him on the 09.08.2021. However, Mr. Varun preferred not to respond to it despite more than one year has elapsed in-between. Furthermore, Mr. Varun has neither responded nor he preferred to be avail personal hearing to put his submissions in response to the SCN issued dated […]
We are of the considered opinion that estimated additions do not call for levy of penalty. Therefore, by deleting the impugned penalties for all the years, we allow the appeals of the assessee.
We notice that there is nothing on record to show that the AO has examined this aspect at all. We noticed that the AO had asked for details of sales and expenses, but the assessee has furnished only the Profit and Loss account.
Supreme Court held that the appellant-JSPL is duly complying with the prescription in Explanation to Rule 3 of Distribution License Rules and hence cancellation of licence is unjustified.
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.
