Alpha Corp Development files writ petition for prompt decision on rectification applications and refund. Delhi HC directs Revenue to act within eight weeks.
ITAT ruled that when sales are not in doubt, then 100% disallowance for bogus purchases cannot be made and relied on Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom) and Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs M. Haji Adam & Co Income Tax Appeal No.1004 of 2016 dated 11/2/2019.
Explore the Delhi High Court judgment in Davinder Singh Thapar vs. ACIT, highlighting the invalidity of notices against a deceased assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Yashraj Containeurs Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Revenue sought to include the TCS collected by the appellant from the buyer of scrap in the assessable value for charging Excise Duty. The said TCS is collected and deposited to the income tax department in terms of Section 206C of Income Tax Act, 1961. From […]
Astral Limited Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the present case as given above the product imported by the appellant consisted of pre-dominantly of Butadiene which is an olefin therefore, in terms of Chapter note 4 to chapter 39 the product is correctly classifiable under CTH 390290000. The Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) have not […]
Bayer Vapi Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the sanctioning authority appropriated the demand of Rs.4,50,572/-from the sanctioned rebate claim, the said appropriated amount is towards penalty and interest in a demand case whereas, the appellant had deposited the entire duty amount. When the appropriation was done against the demand […]
Pratibha Industries Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that in case of parallel proceedings under Income-tax Act, 1961 and IBC, 2016, the IBC has an overriding effect over the provisions of the Income-tax Act which has been decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd in […]
Mahadevan HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) We noted that the individual Smt. Bhavani Mahadevan had purchased the land at Plot No.94, ARN Nagar, Korattur by way of sale deed dated 14.07.1994 and land at Plot No.II, VGN Avenue, Sennerkuppam Village by way of sale deed dated 03.08.1995. Shri R. Mahadevan had purchased the land at […]
A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the provisions of section 145 (3) have not been invoked and the books of account of the assessee have not been rejected. This being so, admittedly, estimation of the assessee’s income is not permissible.
The assessee received intimation under section 143(1) of the Act from CPC Bengaluru and in the said intimation, certain adjustments were made as regards deduction claimed under section 11(2) of the Act, which according to the assessee have been incorrectly disallowed since assessee case is directly supported by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Natwarlal Chaudhry Charitable Trust 189 ITR 656 (Cal).
