Central Government amends Amount of fee payable for transaction to be registered under Registration of Assignment of Receivables Rules, 2012.
This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 04.5.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2004-05 on the following grounds:-
Initiation of reopening proceedings without communicating the reasons for reopening to the assessee was not justified.
Indo Arya Central Transport Limited Vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) M/s Indo Arya Central Transport Limited have filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 14.03.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 1; (b) Restrain the Respondent No. 1 and the officers […]
Where revision application was filed by assessee, however, assessee had not been able to point out any error, which was apparent on the face of the order but the attempt appeared to be re-arguing the entire matter which is impermissible, accordingly, the review application was dismissed.
Appellant not eligible to avail input tax credit against unutilised cenvat credit such as Education cess, Secondary & Higher secondary Education cess & Krishi Kalyan cess lying in his books of Accounts.
The Revenue has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal thereby partly allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue against the judgment and order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
The remuneration to the members of the HUF were paid for the services rendered in the business which is allowable U/s. 37(1) and invoking the provisions of Section 184 and Section 40(b) does not arise on the facts of the case at all.
Govt notifies GST Refund Sanctioning Authorities under Madhya Pradesh Goods and service tax Act, 2017 vide Order No. 04/2018 dated 18/05/2018 based on amount of refund.
This is an appeal by Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Tirupati, dated 31-03-2017, treating the deposits made in the bank account as business turnover, whereas AO was of the opinion that these are unexplained income U/s. 68 of the Act.
