P.S.Shanmuga Sundaram Vs Director Treasuries and Accounts Department (Madras High Court) Facts- The Petitioners are in the business of vending stamp papers since 1988 and holding valid licenses. The grievance of the Writ Petitioners is that since January, 2015, the Respondents are illegally demanding the Petitioners to deposit Rs.15/- for every bundle of currency, i.e., bundle […]
From a conjoint reading of Section 2(1)(j)(A), Section 2(1)(o)(i), Section 3, Section 5 and Section 6 of the DTVSV Act, it is clear that there is no provision in the DTVSV Act, which authorises recovery of interest paid earlier by the Department under Section 244A as disputed tax, there being no statutory mandate for the Designated Authority to recover interest as disputed tax in the manner sought to be done in this case.
-We find that the ‘Commercial training/ education/ coaching’ provided by the appellant imparts skills to the students/ trainees to enable them to seek employment or undertake self-employment directly upon completion of the course.
Shaheen Khan Vs ITO (ITAT Allahabad) Facts- The main sources of income of the assessee were from interest on FDRs, interest on saving bank account and interest income of his minor son and daughter. ROI of the assessee was processed by Revenue u/s 143(1) of the Act, and later on the case of the assessee […]
Shujaat Ali Khan Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Facts- Case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued. The assessment U/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 was completed after making addition of Rs. 7,71,826/- being alleged undisclosed short-term capital gain on alleged sale of immovable property after invoking Section 50C of the Act. […]
HC held that is not proper on the part of State Bank of India to collect cash handling charges from the stamp vendors. Accordingly, the Second and Third Respondents have failed to establish that they have the authority to collect cash handling charges from the stamp vendors, who all are depositing money through Treasury Challans for purchase of stamps.
It is a settled position of law that if notice under section 274 read with 271(1)(c) is not specific about the charge or limb under which penalty is being levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, then any penalty levied on the basis of such notice is bad in law and liable to be deleted.
Held that explanation 5 to section 43B has prospective effect. Hence, learned NFAC is not justified in disallowing the belated remittance of employees contribution to PF/ESI but paid within the due date of filing the return of income under the normal provisions of the I.T. Act.
DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. Vs Drs Logistics (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Facts- An application seeking ad interim ex parte injunction was filed by the plaintiffs against Google India, Google LLC and Just Dial restraining them from using or permitting third parties to use plaintiffs’ registered trademark AGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS or DRS LOGISTICS either […]
ADIA files ROI in India disclosing income falling within the scope of section 5(2). However, in view of exemption available in terms of India-UAE DTAA, ADIA reports NIL taxable income. AAR denies the benefit of India-UAE DTAA benefit to ADIA in respect of income accruing on the investment made or proposed to be made by Green Maiden A 2013 Trust which was established by ADIA and ETL.
