CBDT Vs. Satya Narain Shukla (Delhi High Court) A plain reading of Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 indicates that the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to Intelligence and Security Organizations as specified in the Second Schedule. Further, any information received from such organizations falls under the exclusionary clause […]
Sub-section (1) of Sec. 271AAB of the Act uses the word may not shall. May cannot be equated with shall especially in penalty proceeding. Using the word may in our opinion, gives a discretion to the AO to levy the penalty or not to levy, even if the assessee has made default under said provision. Therefore we hold that penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory and is discretionary.
ITO Vs Adhikar (ITAT Cuttack) In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the assessee is engaged in the activity of Micro Finance. The Assessing Officer considered the same as non-charitable activity within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act on the ground that the activities were carried out on commercial lines. […]
Krishna N Bhojwani, Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) While calculating annual value of the let out property, maintenance charges paid to the society by the assessee is admissible deduction from the annual let out value under section 23(1)(b). Hence, disallowance made by AO was not justified. FULL TEXT OF ITAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: The captioned […]
Wind World India Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee contended that wind turbine generators were used for generation of electricity, which is akin to manufacturing of an article or thing as the electricity is intangible and its effect can be seen and felt, transferred, delivered, stored, processed, etc. It was, thus submitted […]
Prospectus is only for the purpose of screening of students by way of Admission Screening Examination and is not a part of the services. The student only by filling of prospectus does not become entitled to get coaching from the Appellant.
This appeal by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 03-09-2011 passed against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 21-12-2010 and is filed on the following grounds
ACIT v. Shrey Sharma Guleri (ITAT Mumbai) The argument of the learned D.R. is that the basement in the house cannot be termed as a residential house within the provisions of section 54 of the Act. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee defended the conclusion drawn in the impugned order. It was pleaded that basement is part and parcel of the residential unit, therefore, it cannot be termed as a separate unit.
The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned final judgment and order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Tax Appeal No. 235 of 2012 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenuethe appellant herein against the judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short The Tribunal) in ITA No. 1039/Ahd./2007 and ITA No. 240/Ahd./2008.
Team GST comprising officers of the CBIC and the States have won the Prime Ministers award for Excellence in Public Administration this year.
