Atibir Industries Co. Ltd. Vs The Union of India (Jharkhand High Court) Conclusion: On discovering of technical glitches faced by assessee-company, GST Authority was directed either to open GSTN portal enabling assessee to file its application for refund in GST RFD-01 or to manually accept the application for refund pertaining to the period 2017-18 and […]
When a statutory form is created by law for redressal of grievance, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. Therefore, assessee had not only have efficacious remedy, rather alternative remedy under the GST Act, and therefore, the present petition was not maintainable.
AO had recorded incorrect, wrong and non-existing reasons for reopening of the assessment and also failed to verify the information received by him before recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. Thus, there was clearly non-application of mind on the part of AO to initiate the re-assessment proceedings. Thus, the reopening of assessment could not be sustained in Law.
Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: The investment in Tata Sons by assessee trust was not thus for the purpose of investment in shares, but this shareholding being held by the assessee trust was undisputedly for the purpose of sharing the fruits of the success, of the Tata Group, for the benefit […]
Sir Ratan Tata Trust Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Commissioner was clearly in error in invoking powers under section 263 on the ground that the Assessing Officer failed to examine the investments of the trust complying with the provisions of Section 11(5) and Section 13(1)(d) as how the trust was treating the investment, i.e., in […]
Outward freight in India except the freight for import of material distributed be not considered for adjustment as it is not operating from transaction perspective.
Respective officer was directed to dispose of complaints/FIRs filed in respect of economic offences and take appropriate action within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
No service tax applicable to salary paid to employees under the secondment agreement as persons seconded to assessee working in the capacity of employees and payment of salaries etc was made to such employees by group companies only for disbursement purposes and hence employee-employer relationship exist and the whole arrangement between assessee and its group companies did not fall under the taxable service of manpower recruitment or supply agency service as defined under the Finance Act, 1994.
Assessee had handed over possession of the property to M/s. V.S. K Associates in the year 2000 on receiving substantial part of consideration which constituted transfer u/s. 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of the TPA attracting taxability of capital gain in the A.Y. 2001-02. Thus, the same could not once again be taxed in the assessment year 2007-08.
Addition made by AO against Educational Trust on account ofdonations were found to be bogus was justified as assessee failed to discharge the onus of proof cast upon it and no attempt was made to produce credible material to corroborate the transactions or to explain the contradictory evidence that it was confronted with.
