This circular contains the operational aspects with reference to scheme(s) of arrangement by entities who have listed their NCDs/ NCRPS.
Satish Kumar Contractor Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the AO was not justified in making the addition on substantive basis in the hands of the assessee. He submitted that the assessee had filed a Supplementary Partnership Deed which clarified about the liability of the assessee firm. It was further […]
Section 250(6) of the Act mandates that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal is required to pass order on points of determination (grounds of appeals), decision therein on and reasons for such decision.
Caravel Logistics Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Handbook of Procedures issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) dated 08.04.2005 (2004-09) requires, at paragraph 2.32, in the case of import in the form of metallic waste, scrap, etc., referred to therein, the furnishing of pre-shipment inspection certificate at the time of […]
In this case findings of the Adjudicating Authority, clearly exonerates this appellant from the penal action under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, for the reason that there was no material on record to prove that the appellant had submitted the fake gate pass.
Stay updated on the draft common ITR Form issued by CBDT. Learn about the new form that will replace multiple ITR forms for filing Income Tax Returns.
Sarabjeet Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) The brief fact of the case that the assessee is a trader &filed his return u/s 139(1) by taking the benefit of presumptive scheme u/s 44AD of the Act. During the F.Y. 2010-11 related A.Y. 2011-12 the turnover was 15,50,000/- & declared total income of Rs.1,40,880/-. The notice u/s […]
DCIT Vs 3i Infotech Consultancy Services Limited (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that factoring charges incurred by the assessee company is not in the nature of interest and that the assessee was not under the obligation to deduct TDS as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act. For this, we would like to […]
ITAT Chennai held that TPO unreasonably rejected the CUP method consistently followed by the assessee to bench mark international transaction with its Associated Enterprise as there was no change in the facts and circumstance of the case for the impugned Assessment Year.
Additions made on ad-hoc basis on estimation does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as there is no conclusive proof of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
