K.S. Hanumantha Rao Vs PCIT (ITAT Bangalore) According to the CIT, the assessee was not entitled to claim for deduction u/s 54 of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.48,81,963 for the investment made in new asset, since the investment in the new asset was made one year prior to the date of sale of the original […]
Chandigarh CESTAT ruling in Maharaja Crane Services vs. Commissioner of CGST – Applicability of Limitation Act to service tax matters. Legal insights on demand beyond the five-year limit.
Through Government Resolutions dated 20/12/2018, the Government prescribed the modalities procedure for sanction and disbursement of Industrial Promotional Subsidy (IPS) to all Eligible Units i.e. Mega/Ultra —Mega Projects & units other than Mega/Ultra-Mega Projects.
Office Order No. 68 of 2021 Consequent upon approval of the Competent Authority, the following officers are, hereby, promoted to the grade of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) (level 15 in the pay matrix Rs. 1,82,200-2,24,100/-) on in-situ basis with immediate effect or w.e.f. the date of assumption of charge of the post by them, whichever is later:-
Outstanding demands or disputed amounts which pertain to regular assessment and its escaped assessment, if any, and are not related to evasion cases. Here the penalty, if any, as mentioned in column 4 of the Table- A, implies penalty other than the penalty imposed for evasion/avoidance of tax.
It is essential that all insurers establish procedures to let policyholders get clear and transparent communication at various stages of claim processing. As specified in the within referred circular dated 10.4.2019, all the insurers shall ensure putting in place systems to enable policyholders track the status of cashless requests/ claims filed with the Insurer/TPA through the Website/Portal/App or any other authorized electronic means on an ongoing basis.
Dive into Aparna Bhat vs State, Supreme Court ruling on bail conditions in sexual offence cases. Addressing gender stereotypes, ensuring sensitivity, and upholding justice. Full text included.
Certain errors were made while furnishing the details outward supplies in the Form GSTR-1 on account of which there was a mismatch between the GST portal data and data on the ICEGATE customs portal and hence, the refund of the IGST was not granted for the month of July, 2017.
DCIT Vs Force Motors Ltd. (ITAT Pune) During the First Appellate Proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals), it was submitted by the assessee that payments were made to technical consultants from Japan, Germany and Italy. The assessee submitted that these consultants are not residents of India and further their stay in India was less than the […]
Lord Krishna Rice Mills Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Whether the assessee can claim additional depreciation which was not claimed in the original return or not claimed through revised return, but, was claimed during the course of assessment proceedings. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. […]
