A search and seizure action was initiated by the Income Tax Department on few business groups engaged in coal trading/ transportation, execution of civil contracts, extraction of iron ore and production of sponge iron, on 04.11.2022.
AO committed an error in summarily rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and also rejecting the request to condone the delay in filing the appeal without assigning proper, valid and cogent reasons and that the same deserves to be set aside.
PILMB shall submit a certificate confirming that all the Self-Certified Syndicate Banks (SCSBs) involved in Application Supported by Blocked Amount (ASBA) have unblocked ASBA accounts. The application for NOC shall be considered incomplete by SEBI if the application for NOC is not accompanied by a confirmation by PILMB that all the accounts in ASBA have been ‘unblocked’.
Podar Literacy & Education Trust Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) AO has disallowed the claim of depreciation as per the mandate of provisions of sec. 11(6) of the Act, which reads as under:- (6) In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then, for such purposes […]
Sh. Gurpreet Singh Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) ITAT held that where the lapse came about due to a mere technical error, like the one in the present case, i.e., inadvertent wrong filing of TDS Statement, i.e., in Form No. 26QB, rather than in the applicable Form No. 27Q, there is no case for levy of […]
On the anti-evasion side, in a targeted operation, officers of Mumbai Airport Customs, intercepted three outbound passengers suspected to be carrying a large amount of undeclared foreign currency. Subsequently, examination of their baggage led to the recovery of foreign currency amounting to USS 4,97,000 (more than Rs 4 Crore). Congratulations to the officers for an excellent interdiction.
Generation of electricity amounts to manufacture or production of any article or they qualifying for deduction u/s 32AC.
Income Tax Return revision right under section 139(5) was denied and not at all available to assessee who has filed belated return under section 139(4).
Shivaji S. Desai Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The service of notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act directly by affixture, and that too, on an address on which the assessee had never resided or carried its business is not a valid service. In fact, there is no service of notice issued under section 143(2) […]
Abaris Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C. Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the case on hand, from the material on records, we could see that apparently, there was an error, on the part of the CHA who inadvertently mentioned Notification No. 12/2012- Customs and accordingly discharged 5% customs duty., whereas, the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011 was […]
