Since AO had merely asked the assessee for filing information in respect of the grounds on which the case was selected and no meaningful enquiry had been carried out by the AO on the information filed by the assessee, therefore, revision under section 263 by CIT was justified.
When assessee collected the service tax from its customers and had not remitted the Government Exchequer, the same had to be disallowed u/s 43B.
Souvenir Developers India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Any amount retained by a toll collector while undertaking toll-collection activity did not attract service tax since the said activity did not constitute a service rendered by a commission agent and thus it did not fall within the purview of a ‘business […]
Assessee was neither entitled to deduction under section 80P(2Xd) nor under section 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of interest income earned from investments with Cooperative Banks such interest income was to be assessed as income from other sources.
High Court favoured an order passed by the Controlling Authority/ Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which directed government bodies to pay gratuity amount claimed by former employees from the time they were employed as daily wage earners till their employment was regularised.
When there was no clear documentary evidence to prove the identity of the assessee the burden of proof lies on him claiming the benefit of being the assessee.
When the assessee’s main dominant and prime objective was to promote the sports was not desire to earn profits but, object of promoting sports for Nation, it was clearly a charitable purpose. Assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11.
Refund was allowable to assessee alongwith the interest on delayed refund as the officer arbitrarily and illegally withheld the amount of refund despite the order of the first appellate authority dated 30.06.2018 for refund.
Charge of clandestine removal and duty evasion was a serious charge having civil consequences upon the assessee. Such charge could not be confirmed unless there was sufficient corroborative evidence which lead to the inevitable conclusion of clandestine removal and only on the basis of third party evidence the charge of clandestine removal was not sustainable.
When there was an alternative and equally efficacious remedy open to a litigant, he should request to pursue that remedy and not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.
