Bulldog Media & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Appeals) (ITAT Mumbai) We observed that assessee has disclosed the total figure of income in A.Y. 2018-19 itself but because of some problem at the end of deductor is not able to claim the full amount of TDS on income declared. Assessee claimed TDS of Rs. 10,14,722/-against […]
Explore nuances of GST registration in India, covering eligibility criteria, procedures, and intricacies of cancellation. Get insights on Section 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, and 30 of CGST Act.
P.S. Jayaraman Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Ld. CIT(A) concurred with assessee’s submissions that deduction u/s 54F was solely due to difference in interpretations of the provisions and therefore, the penalty was not to be levied on this count. However, the provisions of Sec. 54EC were clear that the investment in a financial year was not […]
Sanjiv Kumar Mittal Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) On appraisal of the evidences placed before us, we find that vide notice dated 10.08.2018 specific queries were raised by the AO in relation to the issue raised for the purposes of limited scrutiny, i.e., ‘Payment of tax in cash during demonetization period’. In response, the assessee has […]
HC held that we are of the opinion that the Officer acted in a reckless illegal manner leading to unwarranted litigation being filed in Court.
Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions India Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) In the present case, the petitioner’s request for refund of CENVAT credit in cash was rejected for the reason that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner submits that although it was no longer entitled […]
Balaji Auto Enterprises Mysore Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT observe from the order of the AO that the assessee has received cash more than 2.00/- Lakh from the four parties on different dates. As per the opinion of the AO the assessee has violated the provision of section 269ST, therefore, he imposed the […]
DRP is not empowered to set aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under Section 144C(5) for further enquiry for passing the assessment order and therefore, the disallowance proposed under Section 37 (1) of the Act was without jurisdiction.
Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is pertinent to note that the assessee company made provision in Mining Closure Fund as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Coal which is mandatory to each mining company. It is not disputed fact that the assessee made claim u/s 43B every year […]
Deep Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The assessee consistently followed that the income derived from the lease charges on the multiplex is a business income of the assessee in earlier years as well as in the present year. The assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal which on merit, the assessee has succeeded. […]
