Printland Digital (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nirmal Trading Company (NCLAT) NCLAT held that There is a difference between recalling of an order and review on merits of the issue decided by the Adjudicating Authority. No doubt that the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to review its order after deciding a substantial issue but it has […]
SMJ Eximp Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of intimation of the fact that the assessee is not existing, still respondent is proceeding with the impugned reassessment proceeding and submits that the whole proceeding and the impugned notice and assessment order […]
Surinder Kaur Sethi Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The assessee has tried to support the claim towards cost of improvement of Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- purportedly incurred in F.Y. 1982 and 1983 respectively by way of affidavit. On inquiry, from the bench, it was however admitted that other than affidavit, the assessee does not possess any other […]
Kishore K. Lonkar Vs Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi) It is not the case of the Appellant that the amounts claimed are due towards any emoluments/salary for the services rendered by him to the ‘Corporate Debtor’, while he was in service. Though ‘service benefits’ like ‘LTC’ accrue, on account of the service rendered during the […]
Sparco Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) We find an amount of Rs.3,71,94,261/- which is above the cash receipt projected by the AO offered to tax in the hands of SMAEPL in which the assessee is sister concern, in whose hands the AO made addition again is, in our opinion, not maintainable. We note […]
The CPC has taken the view that the said incomes are assessable as house property income/other sources income. However, the assessee has considered the same as business income. The view so taken by CPC is debatable one. In any case, it is established that there is no omission on the part of the assessee to include both the income in its gross receipts. Hence the adjustments made by CPC u/s 143(1) are liable to be deleted.
Shrawan Goenka Vs ACIT (ITAT Patna) Brief facts relevant to the issue are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had debited in his Profit & Loss A/c, a sum of Rs.4,94,006/- under the head bad debts. On being asked to produce the details along with supporting papers, bills, vouchers, […]
ACIT Vs Muktha Shantiniketan Properties (ITAT Chennai) It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has raised objection for reopening of assessment and the Assessing Officer has not passed any speaking order in respect of the objections raised by the assessee. It is contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case […]
Shri Kapil Jhalani Vs Jt.CIT (ITAT Delhi) The observations of the ld. CIT (Appeals) that there was no onus upon the Assessing Officer to issue notice to the concerned parties is also de void of any legal backing. When the address of the parties is before the Assessing Officer and it is not the case […]
Indian Overseas Bank Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the credit availed by the appellant-bank on the Service Tax paid on the basis of the premium paid to DICGC for insuring deposits is eligible for CENVAT Credit or not. The said issue […]
