GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 5/2017-Union Territory Tax New Delhi, the 30th June, 2017 G.S.R. …..(E).— In pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 22, read with section 21 of the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (14 of 2017), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules […]
DCIT Vs Adsun Offshore Diving Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Given facts of the present case that whatever test may be applied in deciding whether any expenditure is allowable as a deduction under section 37, the essential requirement must in every case be as to whether the expenditure was either in reality or as a […]
Commnr.,Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Vs Sanket Communications Pvt. Ltd. (Orissa High Court) Heard Mr.P.Mohapatra, learned Standing counsel for the Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party. Petitioners have filed this application to review/modification of the order dated 15.12.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 21861 […]
Since no incriminating material was unearthed by AO during the course of search operation under section 132, therefore, no addition could be made during the relevant assessment year under section 153A by reopening the assessment on the matter which was examined earlier during original assessment.
Rajnikant D. Shroff Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, the assessee is a member of a society owning a building. The society has entered into an agreement with a developer for development of a new building after demolishing the old building. As per the terms of the agreement, the developer has to provide a flat along […]
ITAT Chennai rules on exemption u/s.54/54F for residential property purchase; ‘due date’ clarified as extended under Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act.
Abacus Distribution wins stay against Rs.8.81 Cr tax demand. Transfer pricing & depreciation issues contested. Next hearing on 8th July 2013.
The assessee in the present case has also raised the plea of reasonable cause, that the person advancing the loan was agriculturist and had no bank account. Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied under sections 271D and 271E of the Act.
Spirit of the Code is first and then comes the other things. The rejection of the Resolution Plan by the CoC even without opening the envelope containing the Resolution Plan on the ground that the same is submitted after the expiry of the stipulated time fixed by the CoC, is certainly against the law/Code.
