The solitary common issue that arose in these appeals was with regard to the legality of dis-allowance of deduction made towards belated deposit of employees contribution of Provident Fund/Employees State Insurance. A reading of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the first appellate authority confirmed the order of dis-allowance following the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.454/2014.
The only legal issue involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim exemption on the sale of zip fasteners to a ready made garment manufacturer, who has exported the ready made garments outside the territory of India.
i) The Authority below erred in taking the Annual Value of House Property (Industrial Shed) Rs.23,05,590/- without appreciating the provision of Section 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Whether the ITAT was right in holding that payment of Rs. 70 lakhs made by the appellant on account of non-competition for a period of five years was in the nature of capital expenditure?
Only a right under the agreement to receive the interest by the assessee without reasonable certainty of realization of the same cannot be brought to income tax.
If a provision of law had been clearly overlooked or ignored in the assessment order, it would not be open to Asessing Officer to reopen the assessment after expiry of four years in case no failure on assessee’s part to disclose fully and truly all material facts was alleged.
A division bench of the Ahmedabad CESTAT recently held that Service Tax is not payable for screening of films in multiplex on a revenue sharing basis. The issue before the bench was that whether the appellant, M/s PVS Multiplex Pvt Ltd is liable to pay service tax on the screening of films in their multiplex and also whether they are liable to pay service tax under the head renting of immovable property?
The requirement to obtain previous approval of the IAC is mandatory as it is to safeguard the interests of the assessee against arbitrary exercise of power by the AO.
Order makes mention of the service of a notice to the company as also to the Director, who represents the company in this writ petition. The notice sent to the company was returned with the postal inscription ‘addressee left’, whereas the notice sent to the Director was duly received by him on 14.03.2017.
a) Is Minister or his office a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act? b) Whether a citizen has right to information sought, and does the minister has corresponding obligation to give?
