In this case on the applicability of VAT Rate under Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 it was held by Bombay High Court that Tribunal was justified in holding that the bearings sold by the Applicant were covered by Entry C-II-146 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and not by Entry C-II102(2) as auto parts and C-II135 as tractor parts read with Entry A-35 of the Notification issued under Section 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
In the present case, we find that the petitioners’ argument is that it is impossible for them to remember what was the issue and some decades back, what are the records on which it is based and how it is to be presented. Possibly all the records with them are destroyed or the units having been rearranged, it is impossible for them to retrace the records for want of staff and resources. In the circumstances, we do not think that the petitioners should be denied the relief.
To our mind, in the instant case, what has emerged is that the Assessee, having realised that the expenditure claimed towards travelling under Section 57 of the Act was not tenable, offered the amounts expended to be added to her income and, accordingly, paid the requisite tax and interest upon the same. In our opinion, this was not a case, where, the Assessee could be said to have either concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars of her income.
A hospital attached to a Medical College can be treated as a building used for educational purposes only when medical relief offered in said hospital is free of cost.
PCIT Vs Daljit Singh Sra Prop M/s Sra Construction Co. Bathinda (Punjab & Haryana High Court) Case Law On Additional Evidences Filed Under Rule 46a: Pcit V. Daljit Singh Sra (2017) (P&H) Where additional evidences filed under rule 46A was relevant for calculation of real income of assessee, same was to be admitted Before the […]
A person seeking to avail the benefit of VDIS Scheme of 1997 Act must strictly satisfy its provisions as held by the Supreme Court in Hemalatha Gargya v/s. CIT 259 ITR 1. The Apex Court held that the person seeking the benefit of the Scheme of 1997 Act is bound to strictly comply with its conditions like any fiscal legislation and equitable considerations can have no place in construing it.
Petitioner owns an area admeasuring 2.00 acres bearing khasra No.266 & 267 at village Palod, PH No.69/18 RI Block Mandir Hasod, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur. A part of the said area belonging to the petitioner has been used for construction of road by the Naya Raipur Development Authority (NRDA)
Having heard Mr. Pinto at some length and perusing with his assistance the order, dated 1972013, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” Bench, Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No.4125/Mum/2012 for the Assessment Year 2009-10, we are of the view that the same does not raise any substantial question of law.
It was held that Article 105(2) though gives immunity in respect of everything said in Parliament but subject to the limitation that it should have been said during the sitting of Parliament and in the course of business of Parliament.
In this case assessee having got 15 flats along with his two sons will not disentitle him from getting the benefit U/s. 54F of IT Act only on ground that all the 15 flats are not in the same Block, particularly in the light of admitted factual position that all the 15 flats are located at same address.
