The issue under consideration is regarding the show cause notice issued by GST department to Colgate Palmolive India Ltd for detention of goods.
The issue under consideration is whether the sale of shares by a Cyprus company to the assessee of an Indian company, who was holding a technology Park [immovable property] as only asset, is taxable in India in view of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Cyprus?
The issue under consideration is whether the addition under section 68 is done by AO is justified in law whenm addition was based on third party statements which were retracted by them and Assessee was not given opportunity to cross examine them and when Addition are based merely on Surmises?
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in holding that the payment for provision of transponder capacity is in the nature of Royalty?
The issue under consideration is that the petitioner filed writ petition for seeking grant of anticipatory bail, whether HC allow him the grant or not?
The issue under consideration is whether the amount paid to the employees under the non-compete agreement is covered by the expression ‘salary/profits in lieu of salary’ or not? and If not then whether the TDS will be applicable or not?
The issue under consideration is whether the penalty proceeding initiated after 4.5 years from date of original assessment order is justified in lawand also when order was silent about the levy of penalty under section 271B?
The issue under consideration is whether ITAT was right in law in holding Section 50B i.e slump sale was not applicable in present case of assessee?
ITAT states that, disclosure of manner in which undisclosed income was earned and substantiating the manner in which undisclosed income was earned are two different things. Hence, there is no clarity in the stand of the Revenue for initiation of penalty under Section 271AAA,
Merely because assessee has inserted some figures, which are not in coherence with the other figures in the income tax return, there is a mistake apparent from the record, which needs to be rectified. Thus, the lower authorities are not justified in rejecting the application under section 154 of the act of the assessee. Hence, ITAT allow the appeal of the assessee.
