In present matter, the Honble Gujarat High Court held that prefacing the discussion on the aspects of law involved in the controversy and the application of provisions of the Act and the Rules, it has to be recollected that the provisions regarding countervailing duty, are based on the international treaty obligation.
ITAT Delhi held that the amount received by the assessee from freight/logistic support services cannot be treated as FTS/FIS either under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act or under tax treaty provisions and hence the same is not taxable in India.
ACIT Vs Gurgaon Gramin Bank (ITAT Delhi) It is emerges from the material on record that, the assessee was maintaining books of accounts which being duly audited by expert, i.e. Chartered Accountant. The report of the chartered accountant has been furnished before the A.O. At the time of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has disallowed […]
ITAT has allowed the appeals of the Assessees following the judgement of this Court in Director of Income Tax v. Sheraton International Inc (2009) 178 taxman 84 (Del). He, however, states that the said decision of this Court has not been accepted by the Revenue and an appeal has been preferred against the same, which is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court being CA No. 3094/2010.
In the instant case, officer deemed it necessary to carry out physical verification of the petitioner’s place of business before proceeding to pass the impugned order, which resulted in the cancellation of petitioner’s GST registration. Concededly, no notice was issued to the petitioner requiring, as mandated by Rule 25, his presence at the time of verification.
DCIT Vs K. Dhandapani and Co. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) ITAT Chennai held that assessee rightly proved that the land sold is agricultural land and agricultural activity was carried out on the same. Hence, the agricultural land is not assessable to capital gains. Facts- The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is as regards to […]
Patna High Court held that the order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, is liable to be quashed and set aside.
ITAT Bangalore held that HUF was disrupted / partitioned as on the date of assessment order and hence the assessment order in the status of HUF is invalid.
The Adjudicating Authority had come to the conclusion that there being pre-existing dispute application deserves rejection. The disputes pertaining to contractual issues are not to be resolved in Section 9 proceedings.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rejection of refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 solely on the basis of the ground that there is no nexus between the input service and the output service exported is untenable in law.
