After considering detailed reasoning by AO as to how assessee has introduced unaccounted money in the garb of LTCG, ITAT upheld addition.
M.D. Noorudin Zariwala Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai) Disallowance of amount paid to Mosque and debited as donation- It is evident from the letter of mosque produced by the assessee that the free lunch used to be provided by the mosque labourers/artisan etc. in that area. The facility of the assessee happened to be in vicinity […]
Azaz Khan Vs N.I.A. through Special P.P. (Rajasthan High Court) it is not in dispute that except Amzad Ali, all the other accused were apprehended at Jaipur Airport on 3.7.2020 while attempting to smuggle gold into India from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and an FIR was registered against them under Section 135 of the Customs Act. […]
There is no reason why a person who has been declared bankrupt by a foreign court in terms of the law applicable to that jurisdiction, should be afforded protection by the Indian Courts on technical objections being raised with regard to the validity of the foreign judgment. In the modern times of globalization, foreign creditors cannot be treated differently from domestic creditors.
Request to announce Tax Amnesty Scheme / one time settlement scheme for pending demand, disputes, appeals, litigations and recovery under various state laws and CST Act.
Re-opening proposed is purely based on change of opinion and entire issue which is subject matter of reasons recorded has been raised during assessment proceedings
Department denied refund of Pre-deposit for appeal on the ground that dispute related to service tax whereas pre-deposit was made under Excise Duty.
Petitioners company is a ‘repeat offender’, this Court is of the view that the respondents are entitled in law to impose a higher compounding fee i.e. five per cent instead of three per cent.
Difference between MRP & price sold to Stockists, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered as commission or brokerage paid by assessee to its Stockists to attract section 194H TDS.
Court is of the view that time of eight hours to file reply to the show cause notice was neither reasonable nor effective, as within this short time, the Petitioner could not have supplied relevant information and documents to substantiate his case.
