Applying for a Director Identification Number (DIN) is a crucial step for individuals aspiring to become directors in Indian companies. This article addresses common questions related to DIN application, covering topics such as the definition of DIN, the authority responsible for allotment, application procedure, signatories, fee payment, supporting documents, rejection reasons, and more. By understanding […]
Balwant Baburao Vitekar (Late) vs ITO (ITAT Pune) where the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was challenged. The appeal was allowed on the grounds that the assessee was not given the opportunity to assist in the penalty proceedings.
Explore ITAT Pune’s decision in Americhem Polymers vs ACIT. Key issue: Weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) disallowance for non-submission of DSIR report.
In the case of Amneal Life Sciences Pvt Ltd Vs C.S.T. Service Tax, the CESTAT Ahmedabad granted a service tax refund for the renting of immovable property services. The appellant, a unit in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ), sought a refund on the service tax paid for renting their manufacturing premises. The department rejected the refund claim on the grounds that the rent invoices were in the name of a different premises. However, the CESTAT accepted the appellant’s explanation and held that the refund should be allowed since renting of immovable property is an approved taxable service. The CESTAT also allowed the refund on consulting engineer services and dismissed the objection regarding the filing of declaration forms. Learn more about the case and its implications.
In the case of Oriental Trimex Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), CESTAT Delhi allowed interest on auction sale proceeds from the date of receipt of the amount by the Customs Department until the date of disbursal. The CESTAT held that the Revenue cannot adjust the redemption fine against the sale proceeds since the goods were not available for redemption. The appellant was entitled to the sale proceeds, reduced only by the amount of penalty.
In the case of Navneet Dutta Vs ACIT, ITAT Delhi allowed rectification in the revised return, even though the original return was filed late. ITAT remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer to consider the revised return and make an order in accordance with the law.
In the case of Srimathi Pichara Vs ITO, ITAT Hyderabad set aside ex-parte addition of cash deposits made during demonetization period under Section 69A of Income Tax Act. ITAT directed Assessing Officer to readjudicate the matter after providing an opportunity to assessee to produce relevant documents for fact verification
ITAT Delhi held that if a matter is restored to AO for passing a rectification order, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act does not survive. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the penalty order.
In the case of Amrita Jhaveri Vs DCIT, ITAT Mumbai ruled that non-resident individuals are not required to disclose assets held outside India in their Indian income tax returns. The ITAT quashed the re-assessment order based on vague and general reasons, stating that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.
ITAT Delhi has ruled that additions made under Section 153C of Income Tax Act cannot be sustained without any incriminating material found during a search and seizure operation.
