Reetesh Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Bench observed that both the lower authorities had dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte for want of non-appearance during the course of hearing. In view of the request of the ld. AR of the assessee, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the AO […]
We are of the view that proper service of notice is vital for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b). In this regard, we draw reliance in case of CIT vs. Har Parshad (1990) 49 Taxman 168 (P&H).
The Ld. AR has also submitted that the case for this year was picked up for scrutiny wherein the rental income has been assessed by AO as ‘business income’.
Every assessee has a right to appeal before the authorities against any addition or disallowance made to the returned income, at the same time, it is least expected that the assessee would comply to the notices issued by the authorities in an appropriate way.
Respondents have grossly failed in their duty in law in not passing the appeal effect orders and issuing refund as per Section 153(5) of the Act and their action of withholding the refund is ex facie contrary to and in contempt of Article 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
V.L.S. Fibre Vs Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Madras High Court) Heard Ms.S.Sarojini, learned counsel for Mr.R.Anish Kumar, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for R1 and R2. 2. The challenge is to a notice of demand of interest under Section 50 of the Central Goods and […]
Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement Vs Kamal Ahsan & Anr. (Supreme Court of India) In the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case and taking into consideration the fact that the respondent is suffering from Malignancy and Cancer and thereafter when he has been released on bail, the same is not required to be interfered […]
Tribunal can only grant a stay subject to a deposit of not less than 20% of disputed demand, or furnishing of security thereof, it cannot be open to us to grant a stay in violation of these basic statutory provisions.
Menthol Scented Sweet Supari merits classification under CTH 2106 90 30 and Flavoured & coated Illaichi merits classification under CTH 2106 90 99
ITAT Bangalore held that levy of penalty u/s 271D, for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, is unwarranted as the loan was advanced by the Executive Directors to the company in cash to meet the urgent requirements of the company.
