Additions made on ad-hoc basis on estimation does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as there is no conclusive proof of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Amar Singh. Deletion of Rs. 2,23,000 addition under Section 69A. CBDT Instruction applied for demonetization period cash deposits.
Service provided by a company in India to its Hundred percent holding company abroad cannot be considered as an establishment of a distinct person and therefore such services would be export of services.
Mahalaxmi Dye India Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) A perusal of the paper book reveals that during the investigation it has been found that M/s Seema Enterprises is not involved in any real business and hence the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it made payments in the course of […]
ITAT held that Corpus donations received by Trusts, which is not registered u/s.12A/12AA of Income Tax Act, are not taxable as they assume the nature of ‘Capital receipt’ the moment donations are given to ‘Corpus of Trust’
Karam Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Assessing Officer made the addition alleging that the assessee did not furnish the required information to prove the loan transaction. However, it is observed, before the first appellate authority, the assessee produced additional evidences, such as, the bank statements of lenders, copy of Income Tax Return etc. to prove […]
In case of the assessee itself if we take the presumption that what the assessee has purchased from RSP is only scrap then he would be selling the same to some other steel manufacturing plant. However, the sales are retail sales. This itself shows that what has been sold by the assessee is not scrap but usable products.
The entire assessment was itself erroneous and bad in law due to non-service of notice to the relevant address of the assessee. The ld. Counsel had not pressed the factual aspect of the assessee. We considered only the legal issue. Accordingly, the assessment order itself is void and liable to be quashed.
Icon Industries Vs Commissioner, CGST (CESTAT Delhi) Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS) was introduced by way of Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 by the Central Government. The main objective of the scheme is to provide for the settlement of pending disputes related to indirect taxes. The Appellant although applied under the said scheme […]
It is well-settled law that once the proceedings are before Ld. CIT(Appeals) in respect of certain issues, then the same issue again cannot be re-agitated by taking recourse to proceedings under section 263 of the Act as held in the case of CIT v. Vam Resorts and Hotels Private Limited 418 ITR 723 (Allahabad)
