Sanjiv Kumar Mittal Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) On appraisal of the evidences placed before us, we find that vide notice dated 10.08.2018 specific queries were raised by the AO in relation to the issue raised for the purposes of limited scrutiny, i.e., ‘Payment of tax in cash during demonetization period’. In response, the assessee has […]
HC held that we are of the opinion that the Officer acted in a reckless illegal manner leading to unwarranted litigation being filed in Court.
Balaji Auto Enterprises Mysore Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT observe from the order of the AO that the assessee has received cash more than 2.00/- Lakh from the four parties on different dates. As per the opinion of the AO the assessee has violated the provision of section 269ST, therefore, he imposed the […]
DRP is not empowered to set aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under Section 144C(5) for further enquiry for passing the assessment order and therefore, the disallowance proposed under Section 37 (1) of the Act was without jurisdiction.
Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the amount shown in 26AS only should be taken into consideration even when the TDS certificate indicates a higher receipt ?
B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Appellant manufactures silos for storage of food grains. Custom made silos based on purchase orders placed by customers. It classified under chapter heading 84379090. Revenue contended it is a “prefabricated building” falling under chapter heading 94060099. Show cause notices were issued and […]
Ishwarsingh Ramchandra Jangid Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Prima facie it appears that the assessee is not in town during the specific period of assessment proceedings as well as the proceedings before the CIT(A) and the assessee’s consultant has not taken proper measure for filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and also not appeared before the […]
Syamaladasan Kumaran Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) A reading of order shows that the proceedings were initiated and continued against the petitioner on the basis of certain facebook posts which showed that the petitioner was dealing in branded rice. The contentions taken by the petitioner that the facebook post itself was of the […]
HC held that Prima facie, having read the provisions of Sec.12 (2) of the I.B.C and the contents of the order under challenge which extensively quoted the observations of the adjudicating authority, it is evident that there cannot be any negligence attributed to the petitioner who was to follow the provisions of Sub-sec.2 of Sec.12 of I.B.C.
Devki Nandan Bindal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The Board has clarified that the turnover does not include the sales affected on behalf of the principals and only the gross commission has to be considered for the purposes of section 44AB where the agents act only as an agent of his constituent and never acts as […]
