NCLT rejected the claim stating it was filed after the initiation of CIRP. Appellant filed the appeal under Section 61 of IBC to file his claims at any time before approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
Assessee challenged the disallowance before the Chennai bench of ITAT arguing that the disallowance of Rs. 134.25 crore under Section 14A was excessive and not justified because only Rs. 74.98 lakh had been spent to earn the exempt income.
In view of this, tax officer did not allow the offset of LTCL against LTCG and the carry forward. CIT (A) overturned tax officer’s decision, stating that the transactions were part of legitimate tax planning and that the method of sale was a commercial consideration.
The respondents, on the other hand, would urge us to hold that a failure to place the amalgamated entity on notice was curable and one which would fall within the ambit of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Assessee explained that borrowed funds were used for investments in partnership firms, generating interest income exceeding expenses. AO accepted the claim and approved the returned income as assessed income.
Where assessee had made supply of the cotton seed oil cake as cattle feed, assessee was entitled to exemption under Serial No.102 of Exemption Notification No.2 of 2017 no matter if the product was supplied to traders or directly to consumers.
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (CX) was directed to recover interest from the salaries or retirement benefits of officers responsible for the non-renewal of fixed deposits (FDs) arising from seized cash during an investigation.
Assessee challenged CIT(A) order before the Bangalore Bench of ITAT arguing that 1450 grams of gold should not be considered unexplained as it fell within the permissible limits of CBDT Instruction No. 1916.
Assessee, to avoid delay and demurrage charges, cleared the goods on payment of the enhanced customs duty, under protest, and requested the lower authority to issue the order(s) of assessment under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Until all the components of the complete article were presented together for assessment at the same point of time, Rule 2(a) of General Interpretative Rules could not be invoked to classify the parts as complete article.
