Property tax couldn’t be levied without following statutory assessment procedure under Section 233 of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 as in the absence of a valid levy, there could not have been an assessment to tax
Assessee had added the amount of Anti-dumping duty while self-assessing the customs duty liability which could not take the character of duty, therefore, the amount should not have been retained and was refundable.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not to be levied as Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c), which specifically governs penalty in transfer pricing cases, was neither invoked during the initiation nor discussed while levying the penalty and neither TPO nor CIT(A) ever held that the ALP was computed outside the statutory provisions, or that the study report lacked diligence or was not prepared in good faith.
Aggrieved by CIT(A)’s order, Revenue filed an appeal before ITAT. Revenue argued that AO’s disallowances were justified, particularly the allocation of interest to joint venture accounts and the disallowance of management and land development expenses due to insufficient evidence.
The Corporate Debtor failed to maintain financial discipline following which the account of the Corporate Debtor was classified as NPA which was also reflected in Part-IV of the Section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor.
The cancellation of registration under Section 12AB was not justified as PCIT lacked jurisdiction and that the “specified violation” clause under Section 12AB(4) was inapplicable for the financial years in question.
Court had conditionally remanded an income tax assessment order after the petitioner was unable to opt for a personal hearing due to a technical glitch in the e-filing portal. Denial of a hearing due to system failure constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Appellate Authority held assessee’s investment in construction subsequent to the date of sale and investment in the eligible project even after the project of the house was started beyond one year will be eligible for exemption under Section 54F.
Assessee invoiced the client department for a consolidated sum towards the amounts charged by the empanelled agencies, service tax on their services and 10% or 15% as its service charges and service tax on its service charges.
According to assessee, these claims were arbitrarily “zeroed out” in June 2018 without any speaking order or prior intimation, and without issuing a deficiency memo highlighting the alleged deficiencies in the claims.
