The AO merely made comparative study of the expenses for the year under consideration with the preceding assessment year and found that expenses incurred in the preceding assessment year were 2.89% on turnover but in the assessment year under appeal it was 4.78% on the turnover.
The Tribunal in the assessee’s appeal considered several grounds titled as “Additional grounds”. However, upon close perusal of such so-called grounds, we notice that such grounds were nothing but legal contentions and arose out of order of CIT(Appeals) which was under challenge
In the present case, in September 2007 the search was carried out in the premises of Dr. Yogi Raj Sharma. The document Annexure RJ-1 was seized by the respondents. At the relevant time petitioner no. 1 was the Chief Health Secretary and this fact was within the knowledge
Petitioners have prayed to declare the newly inserted proviso to Section 115JB(6) and 115-O(6) of the Income Tax Act in the second schedule to the Special Economic Zones Act 2005 as ultra vires, arbitrary, unfair and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
The error in the order of the Commission in the present case lies in permitting the application to proceed without that satisfaction being recorded by the Commission, which is a fundamental aspect which goes to the root of its jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 245C.
After going through the provisions of the ICAI Act and the Regulations framed therein as well as various activities carried on by the petitioner, we are of the view that the petitioner institute does not carry on any business, trade or commerce.
high court of kerala declares the levy of service tax on ac bar restaurants and on hotels providing short term accommodation as unconstitutional and beyond the legislative competence of the parliament
Where a return of income could not be filed by the assessee due to unavoidable circumstances, and assessee proved to have a bona fide belief , coupled with the voluntary payment of tax liability, the Chief Commissioner was not justified in declining the benefit of a waiver of interest to assessee under section 234B.
We have considered the provisions of Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, in the light of Circulars dated 28.04.2008 and 30.06.2008. The words, “any sum paid”, used in Section 194J of the Act, relate to fees for professional services, or fees for technical services.
The income tax authorities are required to administer the Act. The right to administer, cannot obviously include the right to mal-administer. Thus, we find no words to express anguish as what kind of governance it had been.
