M/s. Enchanting Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer (ITAT Bangalore) We find that TPO has already taken the total 10 comparables and with respect to 8 comparables, assessee has no objections. With respect to Kerala Travels Interserve Ltd., we have carefully perused its financial statements and we find the main revenue is from different […]
Advantage India Logistics Private Limited Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh HC) On due of the provisions of Section 4 of the IGST Act, we are of the view that officers appointed under the MPGST Act are authorized to be proper officers for the purpose of IGST and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that […]
It is seen that the company has completed full-length animated commercial film during the year under consideration. We note that no separate revenue and expenditure on this activity of making animated film is reported in the Annual Report. Since the activity of making animated film is functionally different from the activity of software development services and thus the segment of ‘software development and services’ of the company, cannot be compared with the functions of the assessee.
Supermax Personal Care Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We are of the opinion that the endeavor of the departmental officers to tax the transaction in question as capital gains was not supported by the any legal base.First and foremost there was no transfer of capital asset,which is the basis for invoking the provisions of […]
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, […]
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.
