Gujarat High Court held that provisions of section 179 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked simply because the directors of the private limited company have failed to deposit 20% of the demand raised in the assessment order to get stay from the appellate authority.
CESTAT Delhi set aside the office memorandum for reconsideration of recommendation made by designated authority for imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty.
ITAT Bangalore held that orders passed u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act without mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) is invalid and deemed to have been never issued. Hence TP adjustments made through the order is also invalid.
ITAT Mumbai held that amendment to section 50C of the Income Tax Act stating that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of computing the full value of consideration for such transfer is retrospective in nature and effective from 1st April 2003.
ITAT Chennai held that permit charges paid to Government to operate buses in the state is revenue expenditure. Accordingly Pondicherry permit charges paid to Government of Pondicherry to operate buses in the state of jurisdiction of Pondicherry is allowable revenue expenditure.
Tvl. National Construction Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Madras High Court) This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 21.04.2017 on the premise that even the pre-assessment notice has not been served on the Petitioner although the assessment order proceeds on the basis that notice has been issued on 29.06.2015 inviting their objections, if […]
HC find that the allegation of the petitioner is substantially correct in the sense that petitioner’s objection to initiation of proceeding under Section 147 and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act has neither been considered nor rejected.
HC held that Prima facie, having read the provisions of Sec.12 (2) of the I.B.C and the contents of the order under challenge which extensively quoted the observations of the adjudicating authority, it is evident that there cannot be any negligence attributed to the petitioner who was to follow the provisions of Sub-sec.2 of Sec.12 of I.B.C.
NCLT Delhi held that seeking of same reliefs in two parallel applications against the same party is barred by doctrine of Res Sub judice. Accordingly the applicant penalized with cost of Rs. 1 Lakhs for multiplicity of proceedings and wastage of precious judicial time.
Devki Nandan Bindal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The Board has clarified that the turnover does not include the sales affected on behalf of the principals and only the gross commission has to be considered for the purposes of section 44AB where the agents act only as an agent of his constituent and never acts as […]
