Section 11 – Power of adjustment cannot be exercised for demand of tax/interest/penalty which is sub judice by Central Excise officers.
Merely because a note was given in the balance sheet of the appellant company that the service recipient’s company is an Associates Company of the appellant does not alter the legal status of independent entity of both the companies.
City Manager Association Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Let us consider the scope of section 154 for making prima facie adjustment while processing return under section 143(1)(a) of the Act i.e. process of dealing with the return is an ex parte process. It is pertinent to observe that whenever any debatable issue is […]
Baxter India Private Limited Vs Addl. CIT (Delhi High Court) 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned assessment order dated 31st March, 2022 passed for the Assessment Year 2016-17 under Section 147 read with Sections 144 & 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) as well as demand notice […]
Phoenix Contact India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Exports) (Delhi High Court) Despite the correction having been permitted, the refund of IGST was not granted to the petitioner. The petitioner has remained engaged with the respondent/revenue in this regard since October, 2018. Because there was no movement in the matter, the petitioner was propelled […]
Interglobe Entreprises Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) A combined reading of Section 199(3) r.w. Rule 37BA(3) makes the position of law clear that credit for TDS is available in the year in which the income is reported and as a corollary, should not be deferred to some other assessment year. In the instant case, […]
Ester Industries Ltd Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) This Court is of the view that the petitioner/assessee has the right to get adequate time in accordance with the Act to submit its reply. It is pertinent to mention that Section 148A(b) permits the Assessing Officer to suo moto provide up to thirty day’s period to […]
Harish Aswal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has submitted all documentary evidences before the authorities below including ledger account of Centurian Bank Account No.442756061 available at page 108 to 138 of assessee’s Paper Book before the AO as well as before Ld.CIT(A) which clearly shows that the […]
Vice Chairman Settlement Commission Vs Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd (Karnataka High Court) Whatever the ratio, the tax in its entirety has reached the hands of the ex-chequer. Merely for the reason that there was no strict adherence to the ratio as envisaged during the relevant point of time for payment of tax insofar as the assessee and […]
ACIT Vs Anand Jayantilal Kharbhari (ITAT Surat) We note that addition of unsecured loans of four parties totaling to Rs.3,65,00,000/- was made by the assessing officer only for want of Income Tax Returns. The assessing officer had mentioned in the assessment order about the confirmation and other details filed but because scrutiny selection through CASS […]
