Allied Agencies Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TS Balaram Vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) clearly held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points […]
Aspam Foundation Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Delhi) 1. The Assessee herein has preferred the instant appeal against the order dated 31.01.2019 impugned herein passed u/s 12AA(1)(b) r.w.s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), by ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Exemption), New Delhi (in short “Ld. Commissioner”). 2. In this case, […]
Tvl.G.Sankar Timber Depot Vs State Tax Officer (Adjudication) (Madras High Court) It is the case of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid order, the respondent had proceeded to issue the notice for attachment and for sale of the immovable property under Section 79 of the GST Act, 2017 in Form GST DRC -16 by attaching […]
Union of India Vs Mukesh Kumar Meena (Supreme Court) it is observed that the CBDT introduced the grace marks policy with the purpose of enabling the marginally failing candidates to pass in the examination. Once the respondent – original applicant passed in his own category, there was no question of allowing/granting him any further grace […]
Agarwal Packers & Movers Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Merely because if a claim is rejected by Assessing Officer, would not ipso facto made the assessee liable for penalty Now, coming to the penalty confirmed in respect of addition sustained on account of disallowance of claim of depreciation. One of the averments of the assessee […]
ITAT Chandigarh allows delay in PF payment. Assessee’s Rs. 4,62,844 paid before return filing. Amendments by Finance Act 2021 are prospective, not retrospective.
ITAT held that interest expenditure incurred on loans taken for investment in acquiring controlled interest in a Company which was in the same line of business as that of the Respondent would be allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
Mr. Maity is handling 13 assignments, which are ongoing. It has been mentioned in the press release, that the CBI has arrested Mr. Maity regarding demand for undue advantage of Rs.20,00,000/-.
In re Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GST AAAR Gujarat) The appellant Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation submitted that they provide amenities like road, supply of water or electricity, street lighting, drainage, sewerage, conservancy etc and these qualify as ‘water supply for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes’, ‘public health, sanitation conservancy and solid waste management’ and ‘public […]
In our considered view the presumption cannot be real adjudication of an issue. The very purpose of income tax proceedings is to correctly assess the tax liability of an Assessee in accordance with law but not under presumption as held in this case.
