The contention of assessee-company that the person issuing the show cause notice i.e., Special Director was “the” Adjudicating Authority and all proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice issued by him should be continued and concluded by the person issuing the show cause notice and no other was rejected.
Reassessment proceedings on the ground that assessee was one of the beneficiary of Client Code Modification (CCM) by some broker was quashed as there was no material to infer that such client code modification had been done with the malafide purpose of shifting the profit or evasion of the tax.
TDS was not to be deducted on payments to Manthan Systems Inc. (MSI) for sales commission under section 40(a)(i) as services rendered to assessee by the said Manthan Systems Inc. was not falling within the ambit of FTS or under Article 12 of the treaty, assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the payment made to the MSI.
When the EDI system itself permitted assessee to pay the cess using the scrip, there could not have been suppression of facts etc. Therefore, a penalty under Section 114A of the Act is unsustainable, especially when the duty demand was otherwise time-barred.
Where an AO had also failed to do what was required under the law at the time of passing Assessment Order and had passed an Assessment Order with such defects, such assessment orders could be rectified by the officer by exercising power under section 154.
The computation of income by AO giving effect to CIT’s direction was an assessment order which was appealable. The order passed by CIT(A), therefore, holding the assessment order to be not appealable was incorrect in law.
In the absence of “reason to believe” recorded by the authorities, revenue authorities had hopelessly failed to bring out to recordthat the goods (here Arecanuts) imported from outside the country was without valid customs clearance.
Exgratia bonus paid to the employees over and above the eligible bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act was allowable as expenditure under Section 37 (1).
Lawyers empanelled by the banks to represent them in cases did not hold a civil post and thus the laws of reservation would not be attracted during their appointment
Mere charging a nominal amount for smooth functioning of educational institution and trust could not called to be a part of commercial activity, and therefore, CIT(E) was directed to grant registration u/s 12AB to assessee.
