Only that amount can be appropriated which is actually demanded and confirmed by the authority as legitimate duty or dues.
Authority admits that there has to be some material on record on basis of which, A.O. would form a bonafide belief that income of assessee had escaped assessment
PCIT Vs SPPL Property Management Pvt. Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) Tribunal concluded that on both these issues, namely with regard to the provisions for doubtful debts and air-conditioner expenses, the assessing officer had conducted a detailed enquiry and thereafter completed the assessment. Secondly, it was held that the PCIT had erred in invoking the revisional […]
Binayak Hi-Tech Engineering Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The Assessing Officer observed from the evidence furnished by the assessee that during the year, the assessee has incurred sales promotion expenses to the tune of Rs.10,51,242/-. The Assessing Officer noted that these payments were made towards payment of credit card bills of Ms. Priyanka Jhunjhunwala and […]
HC held that Since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching GST appellate tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, the amount of penalty and interest demanded by authority shall remain stayed during pendency of the writ petition subject to the Petitioner depositing the entire amount of tax demanded.
PCIT Vs Balmer Lawrie and Company Limited (Calcutta High Court) The tribunal after taking note of the factual position noted that the CIT(A) has taken specific note of the fact that the expenses claimed by the assessee as prior period, the liability to pay had crystallized during the relevant previous year and therefore the claim […]
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Ultra Tech Cement Limited (CESTAT Kolkata) Respondent submits that when the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of imposing penalty does not arise. He further submits that the impugned order has erroneously invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Act on the ground of willful […]
CBIC amends Notification Notification No. 11/2022-Customs, dated 1st February, 2022 and Notification No. 12/2022-Customs, dated 1st February, 2022 vide Notification No. 33/2023-Customs Dated: 27th April, 2023. MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 33/2023-Customs | Dated: 27th April, 2023 G.S.R. 319(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the […]
Impugned order was passed by CIT(A) in absence of assessee. Assessee did not get an opportunity to represent his case before CIT(A)
GST: Petitioner urged that had goods been perishable it ought to have sold in terms of rules 141(2) within 15 days of seizure and as it has not been sold, goods ought to be treated as non-perishable.
