Earlier, the application for ADM Relief was required to be made manually to the concerned Joint Commissioner. After receipt of the application, consideration of the facts as also the report in this behalf, obtained from the Nodal Officer concerned, the request for ADM Relief was either rejected or granted.
These Tax Appeals involved two assessees but the facts being closely similar, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had dealt with the departments appeals by a common judgment, which is impugned in these Tax Appeals
Declaration made by the petitioner under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 has been rejected in terms of the order impugned in the writ petition on the ground that they have not submitted the amended declaration in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Circular No. 170/5/2013-ST dated 8.8.2013. As per the said circular, in a […]
The assessee’s connection is not correct as the information available with this office that the assessee trust has deposited cash of Rs. 33,97,775/- in the Bank Account. Further, if at all any cash transaction has been done that issue will be examined at the time of re-assessment proceedings. A.O. made satisfaction and recorded reason that I have reason to believe that cash deposited in bank by the trust, ought to have brought to has escaped the assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act.
Writ of prohibition restraining the respondents fromgiving effect to the notices issued for assessment dated 22nd May, 1987, notices for penalty dated 4th August, 1987 and notices for launching of prosecution dated 31st July, 1987 all under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (Wealth Tax Act); and
Ajith A.R. Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) Petitioner seeks release of the goods detained by the first respondent under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act as also the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act. 2. It is seen that an identical matter has been disposed of by a […]
The alternative submission that the amount of loan written off would be taxable under Section 28(iv) of the Act also came up for consideration before this Court in the matter of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ( supra) and it was held therein that Section 28(iv) of the Act would apply only when a benefit or perquisite is received in kind and has no application where benefit is received in cash or money.
We are pained to record this most unreasonable attitude on the part of the Advocate for the Revenue of seeking to reargue settled concluded issues, without having obtained any stay from the Apex Court. This results in unnecessary wastage of the scarce judicial time available in the context of the large number of the appeals awaiting consideration.
Ms. Bank Note paper Mill India Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT held that where the interest receipt is directly connected or incidental to working of construction of assessee plant, it should be reduced from the capital cost of project and not be treated as income. Statement provided by assesse in form of Annexure […]
Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Anti Evasion, Joint Commissioner (Adm.), Anti Evasion and all the Joint Commissioner (Adm.), State Tax can Extend Time Limit to Conclude Inspection Proceedings under Rajasthan GST, beyond three working days with reasons to be recorded in writing.
