P C Financial Services Private Limited Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax (Delhi High Court) 1. Present application has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking modification of the order dated 31st May, 2022 passed by this Court by relying on the order dated 31st May, 2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of […]
Urmila Vs Income Tax Officer (Rajasthan High Court) the very substantial point which has been raised by the petitioners that one single cash deposit of Rs.34,01,000/- has been taken as two different transactions, which according to the petitioners is factually incorrect and not borne out from any of the record including transactions made as entered […]
PCIT Vs Kumar Builders Consortium (Bombay High Court) Revenue argued that Section 80IB(10), does not at all envisage a pro rata deduction, in respect of eligible fats. In other words, it is suggested that even if a single flat in a housing project is found to exceed the permissible maximum built-up area of 1500 sq.ft., […]
Accepting the statement of the assessee that the addition be restricted to only profit element on the purchases efected by it, the CIT(A), restricted the addition by estimating profit of 12.5% on the total purchases in question.
Revenue can set off/adjust amount to be refunded against the sum which remains payable under Income Tax Act by the person to whom the refund is due, after giving an intimation in writing
Respondent furnished inaccurate particulars of his income in the garb of fictitious cash sales with a view to claim Section 81-IC exemption
Rajasthan HC turned down Levy of VAT at higher rate by department on Food served in Restaurants (which obtained liquor licence as per 3 Star or above category hotels)
After acceptance of declaration by Designated Authority by issue certificate under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, revised declaration cannot be filed
Court is convinced that there has been violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the appellant was not furnished with full information based on which the assessment was sought to be reopened.
CIT Vs Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Specific case of the Revenue before the ITAT is that the Contract is a composite one. Shri. Chaitanya is right in his submission that the dominant purpose of the Contract is supply of the passenger rolling stock. Thus, having taken a specific stand before the […]
