Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Limited Vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) Broadly, it appears that the ITAT has gone on the usage of several terms such as debt syndication, debt financing, IPO advisory, corporate restructuring, mergers, acquisitions etc, appearing in the annual reports of the comparable to hold that the Assessee and the said comparables perform similar functions.
Seeks to impose definitive anti-dumping duty on the imports of Wire Rod of Alloy or Non- Alloy Steel originating in or exported from China PR
CIT Vs. Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal (Bombay High Court) Amount which has been subjected to levy of penalty primarily on the ground that the assessee agreed to the addition and did not challenge it in appeal. The Tribunal in paras 19 to 21 of its order considered the principles which have to be invoked and […]
Attention of all officers working in import appraising groups of NS-I, II, III, IV and V is invited to the Standing Order No. 17/2017, dated 03.07.2017 on the above mentioned subject.
Vide circular under reference above, RPFCs have been directed to ensure compliance of all the exempted establishments regarding filing of online monthly/ annual returns and to issue Show Cause Notice to all the defaulting establishments, which have not filed the online returns.
The UN agencies and the Diplomatic Authorities (notified) in Maharashtra were eligible for refund of VAT on purchases in Maharashtra. VAT refund claims for periods prior to 1st July 2017, shall be processed as per VAT provisions.
In case of M/s. Deepak Agro Food (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with Sec. 29(8)(b) of the Act which is not having similar wordings like that of Sec. 154 (3) of the Act under which it is mandatory to issue notice. As per Section 154(3) of the Act amendment/rectification which has effect of enhancement of an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee shall not be made unless the authority concerned gives notice to the assessee of its intention to do so.
In Stock point Share Services Private Ltd v. ACIT, Justices Antony Dominic and Dama Seshadri Naidu of Kerala High Court held that in order claim deduction in respect to bad debts under section Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, the assessee has to fulfill two conditions, i.e, (i) the bad debt has been written off and (ii) that the bad debt has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee in the previous years.
HC held that We do not see how it is possible for us to uphold the order of the Tribunal and when it purports to decide two Appeals of the Revenue by single paragraph conclusion. There is absolutely no discussion of the law and why the coordinate Bench decision rendered at Delhi is either distinguishable […]
Justices Akil Khureshi and Biren Vaishnav, in a recent ruling, held that section 50C of the Income Tax Act is applicable to a case where even a case where the document evidencing transfer of the capital asset has not been presented for registration
