Assessee being a subsidiary of M/s. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. (RSMML) (a Government of Rajasthan Undertaking). It engaged in business of carrying out lignite mining activities at Kapurdi Mines from October, 2011.
In the recent judgment Hon’ble Madras HC allowed writ petition to claim refund under the category of Excess payment on tax which was paid by the petitioner on holographic stickers affixed on beer bottles
Claim of the assessee for deduction for education cess was on a bonafide belief that it was allowable expenditure u/s. 37(1) and hence, the same was not a case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 270A.
The Respondent was engaged in the business of fabrication and fixing of aluminium utensils. Respondent had availed CENVAT credit on inputs and input services as per their ST-3 returns for the period 10.09.2004 to 31.03.2007
Learn how the PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 of the Income Tax Act due to the AO’s misapplication of law in taxing Stamp Duty Valuation and Unexplained Investment. Explore detailed analysis of Section 56(2)(x), Section 69, and key judicial precedents.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT Banglore held that interest earned by the assessee from the co-operative banks/commercial bank is considered under the head income from other sources, relief to be granted to the assessee u/s 57 in accordance with law.
In the matter abovementioned Hon’ble Calcutta HC have dismissed the writ petition filed against impugned order imposing penalty u/s 129 (3) of WBGST after considering that petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence in support of his claim.
Assessee and his family have 261 bighas of agricultural land and did not filed his ITR for AY 2017-18. AO received information that there was cash deposits of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the bank accounts of the assessee during demonetization
In the matter abovementioned ITAT deleted addition made on account of expenditure incurred for initial public offering (IPO) which was subsequently aborted. ITAT held that this expenditure is allowable being revenue in nature.
In the matter aforementioned ITAT deleted addition made on account of Client Code Modification after observing that assessee utilized its own funds to conduct transactions on NSEL platform and the profits from such transactions have already been offered to tax.
