Impugned assessments are non-est in the eyes of law since the DCIT/ACIT, Circle-, Chennai issuing the section 143(2) notice(s) did not have jurisdiction and the assessing authority in Kolkata did not issue such scrutiny notices.
M/s. Supernova System Private Limited Vs. CCIT (Gujarat High Court) CBDT circular issued on 23.12.2014 prescribes compounding fees for offense under section 276C(1) at 100% of the amount sought to be evaded. This para also starts with an expression ‘Section 276C(1)- Wilful attempt to evade tax etc.’ The title of this para thus, is taken […]
Where rental income was received by assessee as owner of flat same was to be assessed under head income from house property and not as business income, as flat was not stock-in-trade in assessee-builder’s case.
M/s. ARCHI-TECHNICS Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) I find that there was delay in payment of service tax which was on account of the reasonable cause as the mother of one of the partner was suffering from heart problem. Further, I find that this Tribunal in the case of Raj […]
Where there was any shortfall due to difference of opinion or taxability of any items or the nature of payment falling under various TDS provisions, assessee could be declared to be assessee-in-default under section 201, but no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia) and therefore, disallowance made was to be deleted.
When assessee did not receive any amount from its clients, on which services tax was payable, then, the amount claimed by the assessee being unpaid service tax as its liability could not be disallowed under section 43B, as liability to pay service tax in respect of consideration would arise only upon the assessee receiving funds and not otherwise.
Civil Services Institute Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) It is observed from communication between assessee and Government of Uttarakhand Department of Culture, Tourism and Games, Dehradun, dated 01/12/14, that funds were released, as ‘corpus fund’ for operation of Civil Services Institute construction at Dehradun. It is also observed that only reason for disallowance of claim of […]
Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) The Assessing Officer may be correct in pointing out that when the sale consideration as per the sale deed is Rs.50 lakhs but the registering authority has valued the property on the date of sale at Rs.1,18,95,000/- for stamp duty calculation, section 50C of the Act […]
DCIT Vs. Babcock Borsig Ltd. & Vice-Versa (ITAT Kolkata) Liabilities brought forward from amalgamating company written off by the amalgamated company (assessee) become its Business income- i.e. Profit chargeable to tax under section 41(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee had written off the liabilities after coming to a conscious conclusion that those […]
The petitioners cannot be allowed to make separate entry when frooti is covered within the specific entry and residuary entry cannot be resorted into. In the considered opinion of this Court, both the authorities are absolutely justified in holding that frooti is a product covered by Entry 14 of Schedule II of the Chhattisgarh Entry Tax Act, 1976.
