ITAT Mumbai remits the case to AO, grants Antonio Munroe another opportunity to substantiate challenges against Assessment and denied credits. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Narendra Kumar Gupta Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) The points to be decided is whether the appellant had the right to avail input tax against the purchase items effected after a period of 90 days. The dealer had paid tax on the goods purchased from a registered dealer for sale within the State […]
Euro Home Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) CIT(A) held that the provisions of Sec.44AD would not apply to commission income and the rental income received would be assessed under Income from House Property. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. ITAT find that commission income would not come […]
Due to paucity of time, the urgency and considering various factors that go into finalizing the transaction, the assessee was forced to accept cash to go ahead with the execution of the sale deed. The above facts clearly stipulated a `reasonable cause’ as mandated u/s 273B of the I.T.Act for violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the I.T.Act.
Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited Vs C.C. Jamnagar (Prev) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT observed that IBC proceedings are being initiated against many companies who are either appellant or respondent in the appeals pending before this tribunal. We observed that the revenue-department has no proper guideline as to what stand is to be taken in a case where […]
Culver Max Entertainment Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – validity of assessment order passed in the name of a Non-existing entity.
CESTAT find that cenvat credit was denied to appellant on the ground that service tax was paid by appellant as a recipient whereas, it was supposed to be paid by service provider
ITAT held that advance pricing agreement APA is applicable only for specified time span not exceeding five consecutive previous years u/s.92CC(4) r.w. sub section (9A)
Devarajulu Natarajan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Ld. CIT(A), noted that post demonetization, cash deposited in State Bank of Hyderabad was only Rs.2.50 Lacs and cash deposited in Canara bank was Rs.6 Lacs only. Accordingly, the addition was restricted to Rs.8.50 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR pleaded for […]
Kanhaiya Lal Lalwani Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) It is noted that the cost of acquisition of plot as per the assessee was Rs. 555/- purchased on 16-04-1999 and thereafter addition/ improvement of Rs.3,41,000/- was made. In my view, if these benefits were allowed to the assessee then in that eventuality the capital gain arose on […]
