EY Global Services Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT finds itself in agreement with the submissions made by the ld. DR for the Revenue. AO has only followed the ruling of AAR in assessee’s own case and as per the provisions of section 245S of the Act, ruling of Hon’ble AAR is binding upon the […]
South West Pinnacle Exploration Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Rectification under section 154 of the Act can only be made when glaring mistake of fact or law has been committed by the officer passing the order becomes apparent from the record. Rectification is not possible if the question is debatable. Moreover, the point which was […]
ITAT Ahmedabad upholds disallowance of Amay Pharma’s expenditure on gifts to doctors. Setback on c/f loss setoff. Latest SC ruling cited.
Bombay Market Art Silk Co Op (Shops & Warehouse) Society Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT held that construction and works contract if used for repair and renovation of existing factory, the same falls under inclusion clause of definition of Input Service, accordingly, the Cenvat credit is admissible. FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT […]
We note that the assessee did not suppress the fact that no income incurred as such, but however it is reflected in Form 26AS data which is otherwise a salary data and TDS deductions are available for examination to the AO.
ITAT held that tax withholding provisions under section 194H would not be applicable to discounts extended to pre-paid SIM distributors on transfer of pre-paid SIM cards/talk time.
Court is of the view that the delay of one day in asking for an adjournment should not have led to closure of the right to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice.
Berry Alloys Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) We find that the main ground for denying the credit as discussed in the impugned order is that the Appellant failed to furnish sufficient documentary evidence that the impugned items were used in fabrication of capital goods/accessories/parts/components. The Chartered Engineer’s Certificate though produced before both […]
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.
