Merely placing the blame on the counsel cannot justify the inordinate delay of 1546 days. Even the particulars have not been furnished as to when the appeal was filed, when it was returned, the name of the counsel, whether the appellant had thereafter met the counsel etc. On the basis of such bald statements, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 1546 days. No sufficient cause has been shown.
C.S.T. Delhi Vs Sojitz Corporation (Supreme Court of India) It is not in dispute that the service tax was sought to be levied for the transaction which has taken place outside India for the period between November, 1999 and March, 2002. The show cause notice was issued on 20.04.2005. It is not in dispute that […]
Komal Gurumukh Sangtani Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 48- Capital gains – Cost of improvements- The assessee always pleaded that the purchase of various items as tabulated supra were made in order to make the house habitable and proper for living condition which is very normal and would be incurred by every citizen of the […]
Patna High Court refuses stay on GST demand for Manokamna, citing Section 16(4) of GST Act. Analysis of the judgment on vires of Section 112 and implications.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of DKNV Engineering Pvt Ltd, stating that credit denial based on photocopies of invoices is a procedural lapse, not a valid reason.
Explore the Calcutta High Court ruling on PCIT vs Organon, examining the delay condonation application. Legal insights, precedents, and implications for income tax appeals.
Explore the residency dispute in Smt. Kamla vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Detailed analysis of the court view on residency criteria under Foreign Exchange Management Act and Income Tax Act.
Explore the U Toll Corporation Ltd vs ACIT case (ITAT Varanasi) on unsecured loans. Analysis of loan discrepancies, cash deposits, and the ITAT decision.
Explore the ITAT Chandigarh ruling in Kapoor Singh Vs ITO case, analyzing delay condonation, agricultural assessees issues, and the merit of tax assessments.
Explore the ITAT Ahmedabad decision in Ramanlal Jawanmal Shah HUF vs. ACIT-CPC. Learn why accrued interest income, taxed earlier, can not be taxed again to prevent double taxation.
