Enforcement Directorate Vs Arijit Chakrabarti (Calcutta High Court) Section 41D of the Code of Criminal Procedure was inserted in the statute by Amending Act 5 of 2009 with effect from 1st November, 2010. The purpose and object of introduction of Section 41D of the Cr. P. C. is to ensure fundamental right of a citizen […]
Super Sales India Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) Assessee has purchased windmill and capitalized the same in its books of accounts. The assessee purchased this machinery indigenously and hence, provisions of section 43A will not apply. But, since the assessee has capitalized and claimed depreciation in spread over years and assessments have become final and […]
Learn about section 54 of the Income Tax Act and how it can help individuals and HUFs claim exemptions for long-term capital assets.
Supreme Court held that when the High Court deals with judgments of this Court, which are binding on everyone under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it is expected that the judgments have to be dealt with due respect.
Denial of Cenvat credit can be done only by issuing notice under Rule 14 and the department could not reject refund of Cenvat credit solely under Rule 5. Since the availability of credit had not been questioned by the department herein by issuing show cause notice in terms of Rule 14 ibid, the refund benefit could not be denied on the ground of non-establishment of nexus between input and the output services
Sikandar And Company Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) AO has to power to reopen, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from other assessment. Further, there must be reasons recorded showing live link with the formation of the belief that there is escapement of income from assessment. […]
Bombay High Court has held that notification no. 79/2017-Customs dated October 13, 2017 (amending notification no. 16/2015-Customs) granting exemption from the IGST to the capital goods imported under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme is clarifying and curative in nature.
Admittedly, the AO deployed Inspector to verify whether there is any construction/residential house constructed by the assessee. The Inspector submitted report on 19-12-2016 stating that no construction or residential house is existing at House No. 4, Ward No. 12, Ichalkaranji which clearly establishes the assessee could not construct a house within three years from the date of sale of its assets on 17-03-2011 till 19-12-2016. Therefore, the assessee made construction within three years and in my opinion, the AO rightly denied deduction u/s. 54F of the Act.
Delhi High Court held that assessee is free to settle any appeal under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 and is not required to settle all the pending appeals filed by the respondent-revenue for an assessment year.
Ruikar Trust Vs ACIT (CPC) (ITAT Pune) Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust. The assessee claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act in the return of income. The CPC, Bangalore denied the said exemption for non-filing of Form 10 within time. Having aggrieved, the assessee challenged the […]
