M/s. Orison Transport Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack) Belief of the assessee that return of advance from customers is not prohibited by section 269T was a bonafide belief. Therefore, the levy of penalty u/s.271E of the Act of Rs.21,49,943/- cannot be sustained. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This is an appeal filed by the assessee against […]
M/s. 3E Infotech Vs Customs (Madras High Court) we are of the opinion, that when service tax is paid by mistake a claim for refund cannot be barred by limitation, merely because the period of limitation under Section 11B had expired. Such a position would be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, […]
Abhishek Jain Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Abhishek Jain, as an individual, has filed the present writ petition for quashing notice dated 18th February, 2016 issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2009-10 by the Income-tax Officer, Ward No.1 (1), […]
Bombay High Court ruling on revised income tax return. Second proviso to Section 158BC(a) discussed. Learn about the key legal considerations.
Indian Galvanics Cyrium Foils Ltd. Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) In the case in hand, Appellants-Assessee is a company manufacturing copper foils. Son of one of the directors was sent to USA for completing course in Business Administration which was ‘general’ in nature and had no direct nexus with the business activities of the Appellant-Assessee. Appellants did not place […]
J. J. Development Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court) Section 68 Bogus share capital: The appellant-assessee has referred to a judgment of this Court reported at 114 ITR 689 for the proposition that upon the identity of the person who has put in the money being established by the assessee, the onus is on […]
Assessee-company engaged in business of letting out of immovable property, had claimed benefit of section 54. AO found that assessee, being a company was not entitled to claim deduction under section 54; thus, he initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, assessee contended that penalty was not imposable, only on account of having made an ineligible claim.
Sonu Khandelwal Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Section 150(1) provides exception to the limitation provided U/s 149 for issuing notice U/s 148. Therefore, Section 150 of the Act can be pressed into service in a particular case of reopening based on the directions or giving effect to the order of the appellate authority only when the time […]
M/s Rathi Tiles Pvt. Limited Vs CCE (CESTAT Delhi) The question which has been decided by the lower authorities is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax by considering such debit notes as consignment notes. I have perused the various case laws cited by both The issue which stands settled in the various […]
Raha Oils (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) it is pertinent to note that the dispute in this appeal is not on the excisability or otherwise of the ‚Soap Stock‛. The nub of controversy is whether ‘Acid Oil’ and ‘Soap Sludge’ which are obtained by further conversion of such […]
