Aten Capital Private Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Since the impugned order under Section 148A(d) has been passed on 5th April, 2022 i.e. after receipt of the detailed reply of the petitioner dated 4th April, 2022, the Assessing Officer should have considered the same as it was available on record. By not considering the […]
Parveen Mehta Vs Vishal Joshi (Punjab & Haryana High Court) HC held that undisputed signatures of the respondent on the cheque in itself is not sufficient for conviction under Section 138 of the Act. One of the ingredient for succeeding under Section 138 of the Act is that the cheque was issued for discharge of […]
In re ULCCS Calicut City Infrastructure Development Private Ltd (GST AAR Kerala) it is evident that the service rendered by the applicant as per the concession agreement is a continuous supply of works contract services and the annuity is in sum and substance is consideration for the works contract services rendered. Since the cost of […]
Sumo Advertises Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) A perusal of the assessment order reveals that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Id. AO asked the appellant to establish the credits appearing in its books of account. However, no details were filed by the latter. As per the provisions of section 68, the […]
Mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, would not, ipso facto, amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of Income
Considering the fact that professional misconduct has been proved, NFRA imposes monetary penalty of Rs 100,000 upon CA Gulshan Jagdish Jham.
Further, there is lack of communication between the tax advisors and the Board of Directors due to which the appeal could not be filed before this Tribunal within stipulated time. He stated that this appeal was filed with a delay of 423 days when a call received from the office of Tax Recovery Officer regarding tax arrears and made enquiries with tax counsel, came to know that the appeal against the order of CIT(A) is required to be filed.
Maya Rathi Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court) We find that the validity of first proviso to Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been assailed on the ground that the explanation ‘income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment’, has been restricted in its meaning under the explanation-1 to that provisions. Learned counsel for the […]
Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. Vs State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh to issue clear directions to all the concerned authorities in the State of Uattar Pradesh to comply strictly the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and handover physical possession of the secured […]
A-One Realtors Pvt. Ltd Vs Energy Efficiency Services Ltd (Delhi High Court) It is settled law that a litigant is not entitled to refund of court fees in case of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. On the same analogy, […]
