In the recent ruling HC of Telangana have held that assessee is eligible to claim capital gain after observing that the possession of the immovable property has not been handed over to the developer as contemplated u/s 53A of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882.
Appellant and SKF India are both subsidiaries of AB SKF Sweden. Appellant & SKF India have agreed to pool & combine their respective manpower & other resources for the purpose of achieving maximum synergetic benefits.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee after deleting the addition made u/s 68 after observing the fact that assessee had filed relevent details during assesssment.
Respondent/assessee is a Irish company. It accordingly claimed benefits of the India-Ireland DTAA. ADIR is a wholly owned subsidiary of Adobe Software Trading Company Limited and Adobe Systems Incorporated is the ultimate parent company of ADIR.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT allowed appeal of the assessee for statistical purpose by way of remand after considering that assessee was unable to submit details before CIT (A) due to unfortunate accident of CA.
When the power to the statutory authority is granted upto five years to modify the order, it cannot be said that the constitutional authorities would not have power to review the action. SLP against the said decision was pending before the Hon’ble SC.
In the matter above-mentioned ITAT partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by remanded it back to file of TPO after considering that assessee didnot submit proper documents before lower authorities.
Petitioner runs a hotel and registered under GST. It was issued a notice in GST ASMT-10 intimating certain discrepancies which stated that the petitioner had availed ITC which was not available to him as per Section 17(5) of the RGST.
In the abovementioned matter HC observed that all three conditions mentioned in section 220 (2A) were not co-existed and hence writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the recent ruling Hon’ble HC have observed that penalty proceedings, initiated u/s 271 D is barred by delay & laches as period of limitation starts from the reference made by ITO to Addl. CIT.
