Since the unaccounted money as alleged by the AO was the loan, which was repaid subsequently by assessee, addition made on account of unverifiable unsecured loans was unjustified.
Representations have also been received that the cases where appeals were filed after 30.06.2019 should also be allowed relief under the Scheme. It is stated that such cases are not covered per se. However, if a taxpayer withdraws the appeal and furnishes the undertaking to the department in terms of Para 2(viii) of Circular No. 1072/05/2019-CX dated 25.09.2019, they can file a declaration under the Scheme.
Where assessee failed to upload the report electronically in Form No. 3CEB but said report was promptly made available in the assessment proceedings itself, said failure was accepted as bona fide and accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271BA was to be quashed.
Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The main contention of the Petitioner is of violation of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner contends that since the hearing was only by three members and the impugned order is by four members, it is in breach of principles of natural justice. The […]
Export of Bangalore Rose Onion (Serial Number 52, Chapter 7), upto a quantity of 9000 MT, has been allowed for the period upto 30th November, 2019, with immediate effect vide Notification No. 27/2015-2020 Dated: 28 October, 2019. Government of India Ministry of Commerce & Industry Department of Commerce Directorate General of Foreign Trade Udyog Bhavan […]
Please refer to notification No. 25/2019-Cus dated 6th July 2019 wherein the BCD rate on Cashew Kernel broken [0801 32 10], Cashew kernel whole [0801 32 20] and others [0801 32 90] was increased to the tariff rate which is 70%. However, due to an inadvertent error in the ICEGATE system, the tariff rate on the above goods is reflecting to be 30% which is incorrect.
Not passing a speaking order rejecting the objections of assessee to reopening of assessment but passing an order under section 147 making the additions based on reasons recorded had caused serious prejudice to interest of assessee. Thus, reopening had not been done in accordance with the law by AO and, therefore, reassessment order was set aside.
Shri Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain Vs DCIT (Exemptions) (Madras High Court) The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 02.04.2009, which was processed and intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 21.01.2011. Thus, there was no assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee, while filing […]
ICAI has constituted a High Level Independent Committee on 26th September 2019 to look into the Examination processes and the CA Regulations relating to CA Examinations
ITAT held that Satellite transmission services provided by USA based company in India could not be brought to tax by treating the same as royalty income and amendment to the Income Tax Act, 1961 with a retrospective or prospective effect, cannot be read in a manner so as to extend the operation to the terms of international treaty.
