HC modify Conditions of Bail considering the inability of accused to comply with same due to COVID-19.
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is correct in levying penalty u/s 271C of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source on Leave Travel Allowance?
It is noted that the assessee is into the business of truck plying in North-East States and it is common knowledge that the drivers and cleaners before they start their journey on their trucks conduct puja of the God they believe and they incur expenses for buying garlands, bhog etc. for safe and smooth running of the vehicle while they go to the pre-destined location which are located in the remote areas of Assam, Meghalaya and Mizoram to deliver/collect goods. The expenses thus it is noted are incurred by the assessee for puja is for the smooth functioning of the business of transport as discussed cannot be disallowed.
Whether the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 initiated by AO is justified in law? Re-opening of assessment on basis of Internal Audit Objection Not Justified.
PCIT Vs B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P Ltd (Bombay High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the Tribunal is correct in disallowing the deduction of interest expenditure on the ground that the assessee had diverted interest bearing funds for non-business purposes? In the present case, The assessee had outstanding balance shown in the […]
The issue under consideration is whether the loan given by the Government which was subsequently waived off can be taxed under Section 28(iv) of Income Tax Act?
Even in case the supreme court decide the above case in favour of assessee and make amendment section 140 of CGST Act, still that change will not allowed petitioner to claim Transitional Credit.
whether the rejection of petitioner’s application under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Form No. SVLDRS-3 in respect of central excise duty payable is justified by law?
The issue under consideration is whether the contention of the petitioner that the provisional attachment for wrong availment of ITC is without jurisdiction and illegal is correct?
Stay against Penalty order under IBC allowed against petitioner who has violated Terms of Moratorium
