When investigation has already commenced prior to the filing of application, the ARA shall not admit the application as per proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 98, we are of the view that the ARA should not have admitted the application in the instant case and issued its ruling.
Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Madras High Court) This order, passed in a batch of 44 writ petitions is a sequel to several earlier orders passed in other batches of writ petitions wherein the cause of action is similar/identical to that in the present writ petitions. All petitioners challenge either orders passed […]
Randhawa Construction Co Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The show cause notice should reflect the jurisdictional facts based on which the final order is proposed to be passed. The person proceeded against would then have an opportunity to show cause that the authority had erroneously assumed existence of a jurisdictional fact and, since […]
Parvez Peerpasha Inamdar Vs PCIT (ITAT Pune) It is seen that the only reason taken note of by the ld. PCIT for revising the assessment order is that the assessee had deposited Rs.92.25 lakh in his savings bank account which was not properly examined by the AO. The assessee categorically submitted before the AO that […]
Hitesh Manshukhbahi Dave Vs JCIT (ITAT Rajkot) Gujarat High Court in the case of Dr. Rajaram L. Akhaniv ITO [2017] 88 taxmann.com 693 (Gujarat) has held that where assessee had accepted a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from his son to meet urgent requirement of depositing margin money in bank account for buying a vehicle […]
Once, it is established that these payments are for construction contract and particularly the AO has made disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 269SS of the Act for levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act.
Admittedly the appellant’s product is not in conformation to BIS standard as specified in notification. They have not obtained any ISI certificate. Therefore, exemption of SSI notification 08/2003-CE as amended, is not admissible to appellant
Narender Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Undisputedly, in course of assessment proceeding, the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits in the bank account by stating that it was out of gift received from his grand-father Shri Phool Singh. The Assessing Officer, however, has rejected assessee’s claim as the notice issued under Section 133(6) […]
Only question to be looked in Section 9 Application is as to whether the objection raised by the Corporate Debtor opposing claim of the Operational Creditor is not a moonshine defense.
Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is pertinent to note that the assessee company made provision in Mining Closure Fund as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Coal which is mandatory to each mining company. It is not disputed fact that the assessee made claim u/s 43B every year […]
