Patna High Court held that as Petitioner failed to furnish satisfactory explanation regarding huge fixed assets and cash available with him, bail application of the Petitioner is rejected.
Finance Act, 2017 removed clause (i) of section 92BA, effectively nullifying any decisions made by the Assessing Officer under this section. Reference to the TPO under section 92CA also becomes invalid
India’s High Level Committee to examine the issue of One Nation, One Election. Learn about its constitution, members, and key responsibilities.
ITAT rules that an assessee isn’t responsible for a non-responsive supplier when purchases were made in earlier years. Lack of supplier’s response to a section 133(6) notice doesn’t invalidate the transaction.
ITAT Chennai rules in the case of Kannappan Vijayalakshmi vs ITO, stating that the mere non-acceptance of a claim by the assessee doesn’t mean automatic penalty under section 270A(9)(a). Explore the detailed analysis and implications.
Supreme Court held that dues under Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 would not prevail over SARFAESI Act.
HC Observed that, neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Appellate Authority had any material to doubt the Petitioner has rendered advisory services to the overseas recipient.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act is leviable on person who causes to be made, signed or used any false declaration or fraudulent document
Read how ITAT Ahmedabad orders fresh adjudication due to non-cooperation of tax consultant in furnishing property investment details in Pravinchandra Naranbhai Patel case.
CESTAT held that number of appeals should correspond with number of distinct decisions or orders, not number of order numbers in an original order. Essentially, if a single order-in-original has multiple numbers, it doesn’t necessitate multiple appeals.
