DDIT Vs M/s. Paramasiva Naidu Muthuvel Raj Education Trust (ITAT Chennai) It is also an undisputed fact that during relevant assessment year, the land had been made available to M/s. PMR Bangaru Subbammal Educational Trust, which is a Trust that does not have registration u/s.12AA of the Act. It is also an undisputed fact that […]
M/s. Rane Brake Lining Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Puducherry (CESTAT Chennai) The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is eligible for credit of the service tax (ST) paid on product liability insurance. The department has denied the same on the ground that it is post-manufacturing activity and […]
DCIT Vs. Inventaa Industries Private Limited (ITAT Hyderabad Special Bench) Mushrooms are fungus which are produced from spawn and not plants or crops and hence not agriculture. They are grown in trays of prepared soil in climate controlled rooms for commercial. We cannot restrict the word “product” to ‘plants’, ‘fruits’, ‘vegetables’ or such botanical life […]
Petitioner Shri Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka and Neeraj Jain were arrested on 12.05.2018 due to their involvement in the business of generating and selling of fake tax invoices to various entities without supplying the underlying goods or services, thereby facilitating irregular availment and utilization of input tax credit by such entities to whom such fake invoices were issued.
It has been decided that exporter shall have option to furnish self-certified copy of any copy of shipping bill i.e. Exporter copy/EP Copy/CHA copy/ Exchange Control Copy of shipping bill along with application for EODC in ANF-4F where exports were made on or after 23.11.2016
Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds of the same, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error.
Challenging the order,dated 18/12/2015,of the CIT(A)-28 Mumbai the Assessing Officer (AO)has filed the present appeal.Assessee-firm,a builder and developer,filed its return of income on 25/09/2010,declaring total income of Rs.6.29 crores.The AO completed the assessment on 23/12/2011,determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.7.40 crores.
otwithstanding the fact that the TPO determined nil ALP of royalty payment and franchisee fee, the amount paid as R&D Cess on these payments has to be allowed as deduction since it is a statutory payment to the Government.
Petitioners had ceased to be the Directors of the Company, as stated by them, on 8thApril, 2011 and that they could not have been penalized for the failure of the company to effect statutory compliances.
Since in the present case also the assessee had taken the loan from his wife for the purchase of house which is for the benefit of the whole family, therefore, following the decision cited [supra], we hold that penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act in the instant case is not justified.
