Hemant Nevandram Lalwani Vs ITO (TDS) (Bombay High Court) 1. A complaint u/s. 276B, r/w. section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relevant to the Financial Year 2016-17, has been filed and is pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s 38th Court at Mumbai. The said complaint has been filed against […]
Firmenich Aromatics Production (India) Private Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) 1. The petitioner is a private limited company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authority in rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner vide order dated 29/07/2022 and upholding the refund […]
Kpm Enterprises Vs The Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Service Tax & Ors (Delhi High Court) Appellant submit that alleged inspection by GST department, is in violation of the Rule 25 of 2017 GST Rules as the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to be present at the site. Further, the respondent has also not uploaded […]
Bulldog Media & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Appeals) (ITAT Mumbai) We observed that assessee has disclosed the total figure of income in A.Y. 2018-19 itself but because of some problem at the end of deductor is not able to claim the full amount of TDS on income declared. Assessee claimed TDS of Rs. 10,14,722/-against […]
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 […]
