Faizan Texturising Vs C.C.E. Bharuch (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Facts-The appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Texturised Yarn and Polyester Twisted Yarn. Their factory was visited by the officers on 21.04.2003, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result, shortage of 7618 kg. imported raw material viz. “Bright Polyester Spin Draw […]
Augustan Textile Colours Limited Vs Director of Industries and Anr. (Supreme Court of India) Facts-The issue to be considered here is whether the benefit of tax exemption in respect of works contract granted in the process of revival of the industry, under the relevant provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 based on the […]
In the present case we find that the entire addition is on the basis of some investigation report, the relevant portions of which is also not cited in the show cause or the assessment order, there is nothing against the assessee and no inquiry whatsoever has been done by the AO or the Ld CIT (A).
Voltas Limited Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Facts- Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of air conditioning and refrigeration etc. During the A.Y. 2015-16, petitioner incurred expenses of Rs.3,30,82,713 towards CSR as per section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. Petitioner had also claimed deduction in return of income u/s 35AC and 80G […]
We find there are different judicial forums who has held that high consumption of electricity by itself not a ground to infer suppression of production. The onus is on the department to prove allegation of clandestine removal with positive and concrete evidence.
In the present case, the main reason for treating the land as non-agricultural is that the land was converted for usage of non-agricultural purposes. However, the assessee filed revenue records wherein it is stated that the land still continued to be agricultural land wherein crops like Ragi & Paddy were cultivated by the assessee.
The issue of limitation for the first time is raised before the Appellate Court and the Court exercising the discretion to condone the delay did not arise at all before the Trial Court and hence I am of the opinion that the Appellate Court has not committed any error in setting aside the judgment and directing the complainant to file necessary application to condone the delay and the Trial Court by giving an opportunity to the petitioners to consider the said application.
Hon’ble Bombay HC, in the case of DIT v/s Besix Kier Dabhol, has held that the Revenue has no power to re-characterize a transaction entered into by the Assessee. Therefore admittedly, the AO or the TPO are not empowered to convert and re-characterize a transaction of share application into a loan transaction.
Mukul Agarwal Vs Royale Resinex Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi) Facts- The Operational Creditor supplied poly propylene to the Corporate Debtor as per the demand raised by the Corporate Debtor. Invoices were raised in the name of the Corporate Debtor. The Operational Creditor filed a Civil Suit No.149 of 2015 against the Corporate Debtor for recovery […]
ACIT Vs Late Sh. Amarjeet singh (ITAT Delhi) Facts- The assessee is an individual and deriving income from property, share income as partner in M/s S.M. & Sons and M/s Santokh Singh & Sons and interest income. The assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring an income of Rs.19,27,700/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised […]
