In the present case, we have noted that in case of Karta of HUF in his individual capacity under identical circumstances, application for condonation of delay based on identical grounds came to be accepted by the Revenue. In same set of facts and same situation, there cannot be a differential treatment. Merely because one application was decided by the Commissioner and another by the Chief Commissioner cannot be a point of distinction.
In this Income-tax Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellant Income Tax Department, has challenged the order dated 24.05.2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in ITA No.336/Jodh/2016.
The Revenue has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal thereby partly allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue against the judgment and order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax on chemicals used as consumables in the process of job work of dyeing of fabric by assuming that property in the goods has passed on to the principals?
This appeal is filed against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) relating to Assessment Years 1997-98 onwards, for a period of eight years, till 2004-05. On the filing of the Appeal, an objection was raised by the respondent/ assessee, represented by Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate, that the Appeal is filed beyond time.
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the Senior Citizen of 82 years of age. This Petition, challenges the orders dated 22nd February, 2012 and 4th October, 2017 passed by the Assessing Officer, rejecting the Petitioner’s application for rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Shri Shyam Sunder Vs. Sohan Singh @ Shoban Singh (Delhi High Court) The Trial court has held that in view of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, no loan above Rs. 20,000/- could have been given in cash, so the loan transaction is not liable to be recognized. In so far as this is […]
The reasons recorded do not indicate that the same has been issued on the basis of audit objection. Therefore as held by this Court in Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. R.B. Wadkar 6, one cannot go behind the reasons recorded in support of the notice to infer that he has acted on the basis of audit objection.
CIT Vs ST. Joseph Convert Chandannagar Educational Society (Calcutta High Court) The Revenue seeks to question the propriety of an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal which has allowed donations to be made by the assessee charitable trust to another charitable trust. According to the Revenue, Sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act, […]
Petitioner No.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act. Petitioner No.2 is one of its share holders. Petitioner-company is engaged in supply of wheat flour, meslin flour, cereal flour etc. Such activity would invite SGST and CGST at prescribed rates. However, even this is a matter of dispute between the two sides.
