The Subscription of the Gold Bonds under this Scheme shall be open (Monday to Friday) on the dates specified above, provided that the Central Government may, with prior notice, close the Scheme at any time before the period specified above.
Jaisawal Neco Industries Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) The issue involved in this appeal is whether the provisions of Rule 3(5)(B) of CCR, 2004 are attracted in case of making a general provision in the books of account for slow moving/non moving inventory, without reducing the value of […]
Tata Steel Limited Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) Interlocutory Application No. 9617/2022 has been preferred for ignoring defect and exemption from filing certified copy of Annexure-9 which is the photocopy of the appellate order. It is submitted that since the record of the Inferior Authorities are before the learned Commercial Taxes Tribunal, certified […]
Jurisdictional notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued against the dead person and the assessment order has also been passed against the dead person on his PAN without bringing on record all his legal representatives, therefore, the said assessment order and the subsequent notices are null and void and are liable to be set aside.
It is noticed that promoters are attempting to expand the definition of force majeure to include items beyond the law. Force majeure clause not being in accordance with the explanation given under Section 6 of Act and Rule 6 (a) of the Regulations which provisions are reproduced herein below for ready reference.
The Adjudicating Authority had come to the conclusion that there being pre-existing dispute application deserves rejection. The disputes pertaining to contractual issues are not to be resolved in Section 9 proceedings.
Vidisha Singhal Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) AO admits that the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is riddled with mistakes. He further admits that in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the details of the transactions allegedly carried out by the petitioner were not correct. He states that […]
Neeraj Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) From the penalty order, we observe that the Assessing Officer nowhere stated that the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act were served on the assessee. In the entire penalty order we observe that the notices said to have been issued by the AO but it is not the […]
L&T Infra Debt Fund Limited Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Mumbai) In the instant case, we notice that the AO did not examine the exemption claimed u/s 10(47) of the Act, meaning thereby, the assessment order has been passed by the AO without application of mind. The exemption so allowed without examining the claim would be […]
Mittal International Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) and notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, both dated 26th July, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Learned counsel for the […]
