Pr. CIT Vs Prakash Mangilal Jain (Bombay High Court) Following FIFO or LIFO method cannot be the basis for levying penalty as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In order to justify the levy of penalty, two factors must co-exist, (i) there must be some material or circumstances leading to the reasonable […]
In the instant case, has received cash loan from her parents and brother to meet the stamp duty cost for purchase of a house property for her own living, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act and the provisions of section 273B will come to the rescue of the assessee as a reasonable cause.
Kailash Bahiru Jadhav Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export) (CESTAT Mumbai) Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004 which is a comprehensive self-contained scheme for licensing, operations, monitoring and regulation, is a standalone provision. Indeed it is a special provision in the Customs Act, 1962 by which, a whole range of activities in connection with which proceedings […]
Yashodhara Shroff Vs. Union of India (Karnataka High Court) (a) It is held that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The said provision is not manifestly arbitrary and also does not fall within the scope of the doctrine of proportionality. Neither does the said provision violate Article […]
Pr. CIT Vs Adamine Construction (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The material on record in the form of the orders of the lower appellate authorities disclosed that both the assessee and later the share applicants (upon receiving notice under Section 131 of the Act) had produced documentary proof. These included the assessments and income-tax returns […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. E Smart Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court ) Supreme Court in this Case upheld the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Income Tax Department. High Court held that AO did not dispute the veracity of the documents produced. Furthermore, the two individuals who […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. E Smart Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) It is relevant to state that AO in his remand report dated 10.10.2016 did not dispute the veracity of the additional evidences furnished by the assessee and further learned CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidences purely on technical ground which is wholly […]
In re Uttaranchal Filament (India) (GST AAR Uttarakhand) Whether the meaning of word ‘lapse’ in Notification No. 20/2018-Central Tax (Rate) would mean lapse for refund or lapse for utilization of input tax credit for payment of output tax liability. Held- Notification No. 20/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 26-7-2018 deals with refund of inverted duty structure only. […]
DIC Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) It was a case where on account of the disallowance made by the AO, the loss returned by the assessee stood converted into positive sum and made the appellant eligible to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. We thus find that as per the position […]
Cash payments in excess of Rs. 20,000 made on bank/public holidays towards purchase of construction materials in the activity of real estate development could not be subjected to disallowance under section 40A(3) in view of rule 6DD(J).
