Unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C :- Sec. 69C refers to the source of the expenditure and not to the expenditure itself; further, in the absence of any material found during the search, addition of expenditure would not be justified in the block assessment.
The assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment orders for AYs 2004-05 to 2008-09. Though the appeals were ripe for hearing and the appellate authority had already posted the appeals for hearing on different dates, the AO without considering the pendency of the appeals issued demand notices
Recently, the Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal remitted back the matter to the Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP) for reassessment since the directions of the DRP were found to be very laconic and non-speaking. The Tribunal, while setting aside such directions commented that the DRP has not considered the voluminous submissions of the taxpayer.
There is no reason or justification for the Court on the basis of the plain language used in sub-section (4) of section 234B to exclude the cases, where no interest has been levied on the assessee in the original order of assessment, from the liability to pay interest.
Where the assessee company executed a works contract of design, development, commissioning etc., of an oil free compressor system for its client during the period 1997–2001 it was held that the assessee is not liable under ‘consulting engineering services’ – (i) since services rendered by ‘companies’ were not liable prior to 1.5.2006 under this category; (ii) since the assessee company’s service fall under works contract services which was brought into the ambit of service tax only w.e.f. 1.6.2007.
Once the rectification application filed by one of the parties is considered and decided by the Tribunal rightly or wrongly, another rectification application on same issue is not maintainable against the order issued by the Tribunal under section 254(2)
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was erred in holding that while computing direct cost attributable to export the freight and insurance amounting to Rs.1,71,87,614/should be excluded for arriving at export profits while computing the deductions u/s. 80HHC.
A search was conducted on 18.01.2001 and it was said to have been completed in March 2001. The notice under Section 158BC of the said Act was served on the assessee on 03.12.2001 and the assessee filed the return on 31.12.2002. According to the learned counsel for the assessee / appellant, the notice under Section 143(2) of the said Act read with the provisions of Section 158BC(b) could have been issued by 31.12.2003, i.e., within the period of twelve months fro
These appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment inasmuch as the question of law framed in both the appeals is identical and the circumstances are also virtually identical. The question of law that has been framed in these appeals is as under
The Petitioner seeks an order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement between itself and four transferor companies Cairn Energy India Pvt. Ltd. (CEIPL), Cairn Energy India West B.V., (CE India West), Cairn Energy Cambay B.V. (CE Cambay) and Cairn Energy Gujarat B.V. (CE Gujarat).
