Abhay Traders Vs. State of U.P. & Ors (Allahabad High Court) The goods of the petitioner in transportation along with the vehicle was seized under section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on 2-6-2018 for the reason that they were not accompanied by the E-way bill. The submission of learned […]
When dumb documents like loose sheets of papers are recovered and revenue wants to make use of it, onus rests on the Revenue to collect cogent evidence to corroborate the noting therein. As AO failed to do so, addition made under section 153C was deleted.
The only change in facts is that there are divergent statements by way of affidavits from two Chartered Accountants, one in favour of the assessee and one is against the assessee. Except this the assessee has not brought out any records to prove its bonafide attempts made in filing appeal against the order passed by the AO.
Nivea India Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) TPO had not brought on record the fact that AMP expenses incurred by assessee were not for its own business. The sole basis on which adjustment, under the head AMP expenditure, was made was that expenditure incurred by assessee was significantly higher than that of its comparable […]
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that Corporate debtor cannot maintain appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
Assessing donation write-off & fixed asset depreciation as income application. AO directed for verification. ITAT Mumbai
ACIT Vs M/s. R J Corp. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The A. O. has made a observation that the short term capital loss has been incurred on share of group companies and such shares have also been sold to group companies in such a manner that the entire shareholding of the investee company remains with the […]
CIT Vs D. Harindran (Madras High Court) The learned Appellate Tribunal held that the respondent assessee had furnished all details of sale and purchase of the Injambakkam property and had claimed deduction under Section 54/54F of the 1961 Act. After careful perusal and analysis of Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act, the Appellate Tribunal found, […]
After comprehensive review of the aforesaid news-item, ICAI, being a regulator of the profession of Chartered Accountants had taken up the matter and verified its records and found that Madhusudan Pandey is not a Chartered Accountant as his name does not appear in the Register of members maintained by the ICAI.
Delhi ITAT has allowed the proportionate allocation of deemed dividend on the basis of the shareholding of the borrowing company. We find this Judgment to be wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case as in the facts of this decision, both the shareholders were holding more than 10% in the lending company and more than 46% in borrowing company.
