Notification No. 33/2022-Customs [G.S.R. 486(E).], Dated: 30.06.2022 – Seeks to increase BCD rate on Gold MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) New Delhi Notification No. 33/2022-Customs | Dated: 30th June, 2022 G.S.R. 486(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and sub-section (12) […]
It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the notice dated 25.02.2013 issued u/s 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not legally sustainable as it is not disclosed as to if the notice is issued for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of particular income.
The OP is stated to be a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) registered under the Companies Act, 1956 as well as with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and has been engaged in the business of lending money to the public and collecting deposits. The Informant is stated to be a consumer under Section 2(f) (ii) of the Act.
we find that Learned Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund claims solely on limitation. There is no dispute of the fact that the goods have been exported by the appellant during the period April 2008 to March 2009 by utilizing the services on which service tax was payable for the exported goods.
So far as the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act is concerned, it is noted that since the income of the assessee is exempt under section 10(23C)(vi), therefore, any disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) by the ld. Assessing Officer will only add to the income of the assessee, which otherwise is exempt under section 10(23C) as stated above.
Explore the Kalpesh Patel vs ITO case at ITAT Ahmedabad. Learn about the technical breach, CIT(A) dismissal, and the ITAT decision to grant an opportunity for e-appeal.
On the facts of this case, however, all that the Assessing Officer has indicated is that the assessee had a permanent establishment (PE) in India during the relevant period and that there was presumably some connection between the interest income of the assessee and the existence of the permanent establishment.
Delegation of powers to extend time limit provided under rule 96A(1) of MGST Rules,2017 COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, MAHARASHTRA STATE GST Bhavan, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010, dated the 29th June 2022. Order MAHARASHTRA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017. No. D.C. (A and R)-2/GST/PWR/Sections/2017-18/ADM-8.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (3) of […]
The undisputed fact is that nothing has happened during the year under consideration, the impugned land was converted into stock in trade in earlier assessment year. It is not in dispute that the agreement between the assessee and Unitech is not an agreement for sale and it is not in dispute that there is no consideration.
In the reference 1st cited, M/s. Multisorb Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad, (36AAJCM1498A1ZI) has sought certain clarification by filing an application for Advance Ruling. The Case was posted for personal hearing on 06.04.2022 & 27.04.2022. However, in the reference 5th cited, M/s. Multisorb Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad, have informed that they intended to withdraw their application of Advance Ruling
