Shri Shyam Sunder Vs. Sohan Singh @ Shoban Singh (Delhi High Court) The Trial court has held that in view of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, no loan above Rs. 20,000/- could have been given in cash, so the loan transaction is not liable to be recognized. In so far as this is […]
The reasons recorded do not indicate that the same has been issued on the basis of audit objection. Therefore as held by this Court in Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. R.B. Wadkar 6, one cannot go behind the reasons recorded in support of the notice to infer that he has acted on the basis of audit objection.
CIT Vs ST. Joseph Convert Chandannagar Educational Society (Calcutta High Court) The Revenue seeks to question the propriety of an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal which has allowed donations to be made by the assessee charitable trust to another charitable trust. According to the Revenue, Sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act, […]
These are the three appeals filed by the assessee against the respective orders of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Jaipur dated 05/09/2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the assessee has challenged the action of the Assessing Officer in levying the penalty U/s 271(1)(c),
Petitioner No.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act. Petitioner No.2 is one of its share holders. Petitioner-company is engaged in supply of wheat flour, meslin flour, cereal flour etc. Such activity would invite SGST and CGST at prescribed rates. However, even this is a matter of dispute between the two sides.
That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of 77,845/- made by the AO in the appellant’s income on allegation of unexplained cash, solely on the basis of statement of the appellant recorded during the course of survey u/s. 133A of the Act, without considering and appreciating the explanation with evidences offered by the appellant.
Heddle Knowledge (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Mumbai) The fact that the amended Sec. 140A(3) w.e.f. 01.04.1989 does not envisage any penalty for non-payment of self-assessment tax, the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying the impugned penalty by making recourse to Sec. 221(1) of the Act. Before parting, we may again emphasize […]
Since assessee had invested the sale consideration in construction of a residential house within three years from the date of transfer, deduction under section 54F could not be denied under section 54F on the ground that he did not deposit the said amount in capital gain account scheme before the due date prescribed under section 139(1).
The appellant has a Custom Broker Licence. The Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur by issue of the impugned order, rejected the application dated 26.02.2015 filed for renewal of their Customs Broker Licence.
Division Bench of this Court has already found that the goods detained under a detention notice issued in terms of the CGST/SGST Act cannot be released unless a security equal to the amount demanded is insisted from the assessee
