In this matter, the Hon ’ble Gujarat High Court has held that prima facie it is of the view that penalty u/s 45 (3A) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 is not mandatory. However, in the opinion of the court, the question as to whether once the authority decides to impose penalty
In this matter, the Hon ’ble Gujarat High Court has remanded the issue of not allowing input tax credit on purchases affected through retail invoices to Tribunal for fresh adjudication. For penalty imposed u/s 34 (12) of The GVAT Act, 2003
What is important is whether the interest earned on the Central Government grant is to be treated as the income earned or not, and not what the assessee claimed. As stated hereinabove, in the letter of the Central Government releasing the grant, which provides a condition that the interest earned
Hon’ble Rajasthan HC has held in the case of CIT Vs. Ram Singh that the Judgment of ITAT in various cases passed by this case are stereo typed, non-speaking, unreasoned, arbitrary and whimsical andremand the matter back to the ITAT to re-visit the issue afresh de-novo
If the amount has been deposited on or before the due date of filing the return under Section 139 and admittedly it was deposited on or before the due date then the amount cannot be disallowed under Section 43B of the I.T. Act or under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.
Recently P&H High Court has held in the case of Mrs. Madhu Kaul Vs. CIT that identification of the flat or physical delivery of possession is irrelevant as right to hold properly stands crystalised upon allotment. The allotment of a particular flat and delivery of its possession would relate back to the allotment.
The assessing officer had imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each case where PAN Number was not provided by the deductee. There were in all 30706 cases in which the PAN Number was missing or was incorrectly stated.
ALLAHABAD High Court Rejects Revenue’s denial of Sec 80G(5) recognition on the ground that the assessee-trust did not commence one of the activities mentioned in object clause- The fact that the assessee was still to commence the activity of establishing a hospital for imparting medical treatment would not by itself result in the rejection of the claim for recognition.
Section 43B which permits a deduction for payments made upto the due date for filing the ROI applies only to the employer’s contribution to the provident fund etc. It does not apply to the employees’ contribution.
Change in method of accounting was bona fide and with the compliance of the Accounting Standard – AS 9 – Revenue Recognition issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and provisions of S.5 of the Act.
