ITAT Chandigarh held In the case of M/s Lotus Integrated Taxpark Ltd. vs. The DCIT that the assessee on the basis of the documentary evidence on record has been able to prove that Non Resident Company i.e. M/s Glacis Investment Limited was an existing company
With regard to the said notice for strike, attention is invited to the instructions issued by the DoPT, which prohibit the Government Servants from participating in any form of strike including mass .casual leave, go-slow etc. or any action that abet any form of strike in violation of Rule 7 of the Fundamental Rules. Pay & Allowances is not admissible to an employee for his absence from duty without any authority.
ITAT Delhi Has held In the case of Piyush Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. ACIT, that despite search and seizure no adverse material was found to substantiate the disallowance made by the A.O. The purchases which are disallowed relate to cement and steel which are essential for the purpose
ITAT Delhi has held In the case of M/s Chemical Sales and Services vs. ITO that the only condition for claiming deduction under section 36(1 )(iii) is commercial expediency of the expenditure incurred and once the said condition is fulfilled
ITAT Delhi held In the case of ITO vs. Hepta Developers Pvt. Limited that notice u/s 148 is foundation of the reassessment proceeding. The notice was sent on wrong address while the correct address was available in the return filed by the assessee.
DCIT vs. M/s Presidency Exports & Industries Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) We do agree that in a matter of condonation of delay when there is no negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide approach, the liberal approach has to be adopted to advance substantial justice. In the fact
ITAT held In the case of Das Plaza vs. ITO that the closing stock has to be taken at the end of the year not in the middle of the year. If any addition has to be made that to be made only difference in the value as at the end of the year.
ITAT held In the case of ACIT vs. Raj Kumar Jalan that in view of the proposition laid down by the Honble Delhi high Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Bhusan Jain and others in ITA No.648/09 and 669/2009 etc order dated 08.01.2015
Coastal goods are defined u/s 2(7) which means goods, other than imported goods, transported in a vessel from one port in India to another. It basically consists of provisions of Section 91 to 99. Let us see the provisions related to Coastal Goods.
Those applicants under Right to Information Act, who could not receive the Information required by him/her or have aggrieved with the Order passed by the PIO or does not receive a decision within the time limit as applicable, have a right to Appeal to the First Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) of Right to Information Act, 2005
