Reassessment made by AO in respect of assessee-bank was quashed as no new material was brought on record by AO in the reopening of assessment to establish that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment as assessee had already disclosed all the information necessary for completion of original assessment and the reopening of assessment made beyond four years from the AY under consideration.
Addition made on account of AMP expenses qualified as an ‘international transaction’ under the terms of section 92B(1) read with section 92F(v) was not justified as AMP Expenses did not qualify as an ‘international transaction’ for the purposes of section 92B firstly, there was no international transaction in the form of any agreement or arrangement on AMP expenditure incurred by assessee company; and secondly, under FAR analysis also, no such benefit from the AMP expenditure having any kind of bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets as accrued to the AE or any kind of benefit has arisen to the AE.
Any material collected at the back of assessee or any statement recorded under section 131 at the back of assessee could not be read in evidence against assessee, unless same was confronted to assessee and that assessee should be allowed to cross-examine to such statements.
Whether the time limit prescribed for filing refund claim of SAD paid by the importer is one year in terms of Notification No. 93/2008(Cus) dated 01.08.2008 which has been issued in terms of section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 without selling the imported goods by the importer within one year of payment of SAD shall be applicable or not needs to be referred to the Larger Bench of Tribunal.
Since AO passed the assessment order and accepted the return filed by assessee after examining the issue regarding increase in capital account as assessee had credited his capital account with agricultural income and the capital gain from sale of flats and had reflected that same in its capital account, therefore, CIT had exceeded jurisdiction under section 263 by directing AO to make fresh assessment on the issues which were not the subject matter of the AO’s limited scrutiny.
Since assessee had exercised option in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and once this fact was established from the materials on record, there could be no demand in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and also nowhere it was mentioned that an assessee should pay any amount higher than that of the actual amount calculated under the procedure prescribed under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
When the notice u/s 143(2) was issued to assesseee on the very same day on which assessee filed the return in response to notice u/s 148 stating that the return already filed may be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148, such notice issued u/s 143(2) on the very same day had to be treated as invalid and assessment was vitiated due to non-application of mind by the AO.
UPPTCL had no power and authority and or jurisdiction to realize labour cess under the Cess Act in respect of the first contract by withholding dues in respect of other contracts and/or invoking a performance guarantee. The finding of the High Court was sustainable as UPPTCL acted in excess of power by its acts impugned, when there was admittedly no assessment or levy of cess under the Cess Act.
Once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under subsection (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders.
ITO Vs Nabinagar Power Generating Co. Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) No addition on account of interest income as same was inextricably linked with setting up of power plant and to be capitalized Conclusion: Since the work of construction of the power plant was under progress, interest incomes are also inextricably linked with the setting up […]
