CBDT notifies Income Tax Rule 16. Application under section 158AB to defer filing of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal or the jurisdictional High Court and inserts new Form No. 8A vide Notification No. 83/2022- Income Tax Dated 12th July, 2022- Income-tax (Twenty Second Amendment) Rules, 2022 MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT […]
Notification No. 39/2022-Customs, Dated: 12.07.2022 – Seeks to amend notification No. 50/2017-Customs with respect to the tariff heading referring to the open cells for use in manufacture of TV Panels of heading 8524 MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) New Delhi, the 12th July, 2022 Notification No. 39/2022-Customs G.S.R. 539(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section […]
CAAR rule that the products in this case viz. LUTA.CALPAN 98%, LUTA.E 50, LUTA. 0A/D3 1000/200 PLUS, LUTAVIT A 1000 PLUS, CHOLINC.LSG would merit classification under heading 2936 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act,1975.
CAAR held that Luprosil salt is classifiable under heading 2915 and more specifically, under subheading 29155000 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
In re BAST India Limited (CAAR Mumbai) The applicant has submitted that the impugned product is commonly known in the trade as products for specific use in animal feeding i.e. to manufacture animal feed. The safety data sheet provided by the manufacturer mentions the use of these products as feed additives. The manufacturer on their […]
It has been informed that during the period from 6th July, 2022 till 12th July, 2022 certain consignments of wheat flour, as specified therein, will be allowed to be exported.
Extension of period for completion of Audit as per the proviso to sub-section (4) of section 65 of the WBGST Act, 2017 for the period starting on or after 1st day of July, 2017 and ending on or before 31st day of March, 2018 in cases where audit has commenced till 31st day of May 2022.
If guideline value of the property as on date of agreement of sale is considered, then there is no difference between consideration paid by the assessee for purpose of purchase of property and value assessed by stamp duty valuation authority and thus, provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, cannot be invoked.
Satyabhama Avadhanula Karimnagar Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) I find the Assessing Officer on the basis of inquiry conducted u/s 131(1)(d) made addition of Rs.22.00 lakhs being unexplained cash found from the possession of the assessee and made addition of the same u/s 69A rws 115BBE of the I.T. Act. I find the learned CIT (A) […]
Liladevi Dokania Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) It is evidently clear that assessee received the rent income, and the Tenant (Deductor) has deducted TDS but has not deposited the TDS so deducted into the Central Government Account. Considering these facts, we note that issue under consideration is no longer res integra. The Hon`ble High Court of […]
