ITAT held that Once cash flow statement is not controverted by the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT[A], the addition of such cash deposit is not valid
Singapore Airlines Ltd. Vs CIT (Supreme Court) Whether an airline is responsible for deducting tax at source in respect of supplementary commission which an agent is paid on the difference between the actual fare and the net fare- Section 194H of Income-tax Act, 1961 analyses including whether liability to deduct when the tax can be […]
Due to invalid notice service and non-service of notice to assessee, the assessment order made by AO is therefore bad in law and subject to being quashed.
In re Dachepalli Printers (GST AAR Telangana) What is the rate of tax under CGST & SGST on the service of the printing in cases where content is supplied by the recipient along with raw materials such as paper & cover board? 1. Where content as well as physical inputs are supplied by the recipient […]
ITAT Surat held that the addition on account of unaccounted profit on estimation basis, in trading/ manufacturing of diamonds, restricted at 10% of the sales in view of CBDT instructions vide circular no. 2/2008 dated 22nd February 2008.
Applicant contended that they are Job work provider doing job work of manufacturing chocolates (food product falling under Chapter 19 of customs tariff Act) with inputs provided by the job work receiver. Their service is coming under SAC Code 9988 with applicable tax rate of 5%
Delhi High Court held that attachment under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) does not result in the effacement of rights in property, it would clearly stand and survive outside the scope of a moratorium that comes into effect in terms of section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2006.
ITAT Bangalore held that each and every deposit during the demonetization period would not fall under the category of unaccounted cash. However the burden is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the deposit in order to fall outside the scope of unaccounted cash.
Delhi High Court held that the consideration for the purchase of marketing and business rights for a period of twenty years is capital in nature and constitutes an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act and therefore eligible to claim depreciation.
Delhi High Court held that AO is not empowered to frame block assessment merely on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132(4) without reference to any other material discovered during the search and seizure operations.
