Neelkanth Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We find that the Assessing Officer has issued the penalty notice stating that, subsequently penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) was issued on 20.03.2017, fixing the case for hearing on 24.03.2017. The assessee was asked to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed upon you for concealment […]
Court held that a party cannot directly seek the appointment of the arbitrator when the agreement provides for pre-arbitration reference to some authority.
State cannot claim preference over the subject property for the purpose of recovery of the dues towards tax. It is not in dispute that the first charge was created in favour of the bank and the bank in exercise of its powers under the SARFAESI Act, put the subject property to auction.
Injamam Shariff Vs State By Kengeri Police (Karnataka High Court) It is not in dispute that on theft of phone, a complaint is registered against unknown persons with an allegation that a mobile phone was snatched from the hands of the complainant. The petitioner is arrested along with one another after a week and sent […]
The bank is only the custodian of the money of the customers and has to comply with the instructions of such customers. In case of insufficiency of funds, the bank is only to report the same and as such, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be liable for any act of the customer who has issued the cheque which was later dishonoured.
Sanwalchand Udaychand Bafna HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From the order of learned CIT(A) it is evident that it is assessee’s contention that the amount received is actually arrears of interest. Hence, the sum cannot be considered as cash credit. The learned CIT(A) despite noting these facts has mechanically confirmed Assessing Officer’s order without any […]
It is not at the whim or fancy of a tax authority to decide as to what constitutes ‘beneficial ownership’; it is absolutely fundamental that as what constitutes beneficial ownership must also be examined and categorical findings are given as to how these requirements of beneficial ownership are satisfied in the present case.
Where AO made disallowance of transportation expenses claimed by assessee for non-deduction of tax at source under section 194C; in view of the fact that there was no contract between the assessee and transporters, the provisions of section 194C could not be invoked
IBM India Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Bangalore-LTU (CESTAT Bangalore) On a cogent reading of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 10 ibid as above, it transpires that transfer and availment of unutilized cenvat credit is permissible under the statute, subject to fulfillment of the conditions that transfer of business must be on account of […]
India Safari And Tours Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Apropos issue relating to disallowance of gross income on foreign exchange. On this issue, AO noted that assessee was found to have claimed certain loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuation on revaluation of advances received. He noted that loss was in respect of advances and […]
