Due to paucity of time, the urgency and considering various factors that go into finalizing the transaction, the assessee was forced to accept cash to go ahead with the execution of the sale deed. The above facts clearly stipulated a `reasonable cause’ as mandated u/s 273B of the I.T.Act for violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the I.T.Act.
Culver Max Entertainment Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – validity of assessment order passed in the name of a Non-existing entity.
CESTAT find that cenvat credit was denied to appellant on the ground that service tax was paid by appellant as a recipient whereas, it was supposed to be paid by service provider
Devarajulu Natarajan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Ld. CIT(A), noted that post demonetization, cash deposited in State Bank of Hyderabad was only Rs.2.50 Lacs and cash deposited in Canara bank was Rs.6 Lacs only. Accordingly, the addition was restricted to Rs.8.50 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR pleaded for […]
Kanhaiya Lal Lalwani Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) It is noted that the cost of acquisition of plot as per the assessee was Rs. 555/- purchased on 16-04-1999 and thereafter addition/ improvement of Rs.3,41,000/- was made. In my view, if these benefits were allowed to the assessee then in that eventuality the capital gain arose on […]
Devinder Singh Narang Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chandigarh) On behalf of Revenue it has been submitted that despite the extension of time granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Appellant failed to comply with the order of pre-deposit of Rs.50 lacs. We have seen the case records and find that time and again the […]
It is well settled law that the legislative intent, extending certain beneficial provision to the assessee, should not be made frivolous by interpreting the provision in a particular manner other than the one which reflects upon such intent.
Appellant has deliberately and intentionally has not provided any such information which was false or incorrect. As such, in my opinion that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 has wrongly been imposed upon him.
CESTAT held that exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE is available to sub-contractor who supplied the goods to the main contractor who has been awarded contract/ work order under ICB.
Saravana Foundation Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Against levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act, the assessee has submitted the reasons for the delay in filing the audit report before the ld. CIT(A) that the accounts audited under section 44AB of the Act belatedly as the assessee was not keeping good health and the […]
