Assessee couldn’t demonstrate with cogent evidences that there was business expediency or sufficient cause for such cash payment. Assessee failed to prove that the case was covered in the exception clause as provided under section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD.
Historic Interventions made by the Central Government to Ensure Timely Payments to MSMEs. MSME Ministry takes lead in helping the MSMEs get their dues. On-boarding of MSMEs on TReDS Mechanism made free. MSME Ministry alerts MSMEs to beware of fake websites charging money in the name of registration; and re-iterates that registration be done on Govt website only
Federation shall, therefore, be most grateful if the date of filing of the tax audit reports for the A.Y 2020-21 is extended by three months i.e from 31st October 2020 to 31st January 2021, and for filing the income tax returns by four months i.e from 30th November 2020 to 31st March 2021.
A pdf statement has been made available to taxpayers, filing monthly GSTR-1 statement, with system computed values of Table 3 of Form GSTR-3B. This PDF will be prepared on the basis of the values reported by them, in their GSTR-1 statement, for the said tax period.
System computed GSTR-3B (Table-3 for liabilities) on the basis of GSTR-1 filed by taxpayers now available on the GST portal for monthly GSTR-1 filers – – – – – – –
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by the AO under section 68 by considering the the amount received as unexplained share capital and premium is justified?
Tribunal in a detailed discussion contained in judgment, had rejected the contention of Revenue. Tribunal had taken into account the valuation of the existing machinery used at Daman and the valuation of the written down value of machinery transferred from Aurangabad to come to the conclusion that same did not exceed 20% of the total value of machinery. The entire issue was thus based on factual consideration and on appreciation of evidence on record. Thus, no question of law arose.
The issue under consideration is whether the cancellation of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A) is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by CIT(A) on account of bogus purchases at rate of 12.5% of purchase u/s 69C is justified in law?
Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The issue under consideration is whether disallowance made against the foreign expense incurred for the foreign travelling of the officer is justified in law? ITAT states that, the assessee had debited a sum on account of foreign travelling expenses for Europe visit and a sum on account […]
