ITAT Jaipur held that non-compliance due to receipt of notice in SPAM folder is sufficient cause shown for the delay. Accordingly, delay of 223 days in filing of an appeal condoned.
CESTAT Kolkata held that in absence of service receiver and service provider relationship, there is no service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) for payment of service tax, vide notification 30/2012 ST (Sr. No. 9 of the table) dated 20.06. 2012 as amended.
ITAT Delhi held that as per definition of block of assets u/s. 43(6)(c) of the Income Tax Act there is no condition that the plant and machinery must have been put to use.
ITAT Delhi held that the amount paid by the appellant company to ABOs is payments which is directly related to the business activity and incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Accordingly, the same is allowable as business expenditure.
ITAT Delhi held that addition on the basis of estimation of scrap sales unjustified as AO has not brought on record any concrete material to demonstrate that the sale of Scrap recorded by the assessee is understated.
Ganesh Ganpat Alim Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) ITAT Surat held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act should not be made when repayment of loan is made in the assessment year itself. Facts- During the assessment proceedings, AO got information from investigation wing that M/s Delight Diam P Ltd. and M/s Bafna […]
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act are not attracted as the investment by the investor companies is duly explained. Further, identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of investor companies duly proved.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271AAA not imposable as undisclosed income admitted in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) and specifies the manner in which the income was derived.
ITAT Delhi held that the revenue can bring expenditures incurred in earlier years to be taxed in subsequent years if it is proved that the expenditure incurred was bogus.
Orissa High Court held that the date when the material was discovered is not relevant. What is relevant is the nature of evidence or material discovered during the inspection. It cannot be utilized for making assessment for other years unless their relevance to any other period is established.
