In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala State reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 Hon’ble apex court have held that The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed.
On hearing arguments from the both parties ITAT find some force in the arguments of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that the two concerns namely M/s. Ashoka Builders and Developers and Ashoka Engineering Co. are not related parties.
The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance in both years, primarily on the basis that the genuineness of the loans had not been established, and therefore, the interest paid on such loans could not be allowed.
AO observed that a perusal of the books of account (specifically cash book) of the companies, revealed that an amount of Rs.75 lacs and Rs.25 lacs respectively were given by both companies on imprest account to the assessee.
Petitioner engaged in manufacturing of Viscose Filament Yarn and allied chemicals and transferred the same to various depots/godowns /warehouses in different states upon payment of GST.
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.
