Tribunal was legally justified in holding that on the manufacture and sale of laminated, insulated and toughened glass the dealer was liable to tax @ 10% as glass and not @ 16% as all the goods made of glasses
Ravindra Champalal Khinvasara Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) It is an admitted position that the assessee is otherwise eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of one of its projects, namely, ‘Khinvasara Fort’. The AO did not dispute the otherwise allowability of deduction of income from the ‘Khinvasara Fort’ project, but observed that the assessee could not […]
Gemini Coach Builders Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) It is seen that the petitioner has not only received the show cause notice but also earlier the petitioner was issued with summons and thereafter only DRC-01A has been issued, intimating the tax ascertained as being payable. Now, the show cause notice has been issued, […]
Lake View Hospitality Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) As per the provision of section 43B of the Act, any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee shall be allowable in computing the income of that previous year in which such sum is actually paid by the assessee. In the present […]
ITAT held that business constraint and exigency and administrative convenience itself constitutes reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act . Hence no penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act could be invoked for the same.
Roop Raj Hospitality (P) Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Admittedly, in the present appeal, the assessee has not raised any ground on merits challenging the addition sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals). On a query from the Bench, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that assessee has accepted the addition sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals). […]
Due to change of Manager of Branch and appeal order was not noticed by manager, hence assessee could not file appeal within period of limitation is not acceptable
The waiver of loan amounts to cessation of liability other than trading liability, thus, the said amount cannot fall under Section 28(iv) will not be applicable.
DCIT Vs Macrotech Developer Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT concur with the view taken by the CIT(A) that as the assessee had own funds which were far more than the investments in OPCD, therefore, the presumption would be that the investments were made from own funds and no disallowance of any part of interest expenditure claimed […]
Renu Devi Banka Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court) By this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the impugned show-cause-notice dated 3rd February, 2022 issued by the Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Adjudicating Authority, Chandigarh, against the 24 persons who are third parties/ noticees and none of them are the petitioners in this Writ Petition […]
