Refund applications could not be denied merely because the assessment orders were not challenged by assessee or reassessment of the bill of entries was not done
It is just a gentle reminder that Membership/Certificate of Practice Fees for the year 2019-20 became due for payment on 1st April, 2019. If not paid till date, kindly pay Annual Membership/COP Fees by 31st December 2019.
Cases of financial irregularities continue unabated, both in India and abroad, bringing to the forefront yet again concerns over the need to improve audit quality. Reports of resignations of auditors to swift actions from various regulatory bodies against auditors continue to grab headlines on a routine basis these days. There are several issues that need […]
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by AO u/s 68 by considering the share application money received by assessee as unexplained cash credit is justified in law?
Disallowance of deduction under section 35(2)(AB) on the ground of non approval of expenditure claimed by the DSIR was allowable as prior to the amendment, i.e., upto 30.06.2016, the pre-requisite for allow ability of deduction was approval for Units and not approval for the quantum of expenditure. Moreover, AO disallowed the claim without due application of mind.
Reassessment could not be reopened on basis of change of opinion in case the matter of dis allowance had already been considered during the original assessment proceedings because the authority could not take advantage of their own wrong if they failed to perform their statutory duty.
Continuing with this motive, the Indirect Taxes Committee of ICAI, has recently revised its Background Material on GST Acts and Rules- May 2018 Edition (Two Volumes: Vol-1 : Act & its analysis along with Rules, Vol-02: Notifications, Circulars & Orders).
Rajendra Shringi Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) The issue under consideration is whether the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is justified in law? ITAT states that no doubt, the discrepancies were found during the survey. This has yielded income from the assessee in the form of amount surrendered by the assessee. Presently, ITAT are not concerned […]
Consideration paid by assessee for services rendered by non-resident were purely in the nature of procurement services and could not be characterized as ‘managerial’, ‘technical’ or ‘consultancy’ services and thus, could not be classified as fee for technical services and accordingly, not liable for deduction of tax at source under section 195.
Since possession of land was not handed over to the Developer by assessee-society, therefore, there could not be any transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, even based on part performance of the contract. Accordingly. there was no liability of capital gain tax under section 50C.
