PCIT Vs Burdwan Development Authority (Calcutta High Court) On perusal of the order passed by the tribunal HC find that the tribunal has rightly taken note of the legal position and granted relief to the assessee. Apart from that, the tribunal has also noted the factual position and relevant details were called for. The assessing […]
Tax Recovery Officer ( TRO) could not have examined, whether transfer was void under Section 281 and that his adjudication of the transfer as being void under Section 281
PCIT Vs Crescent Construction Co (Bombay High Court) The purpose of the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 is to solve the anomalies that the insertion of section 40(a)(ia) was causing to the bonafide tax payer. The amendment, even if not given operation retrospectively, may not materially be of consequence to the Revenue when […]
HC held that tax liability imposed on assessee is valid as assessee was aware of transaction alleged as ineligible on which ITC was availed
The tax liability of the petitioner does not get effaced by efflux of time. The Department can attach the property under Rule 48 r/w Rule 60 and bring the same property for sale in terms of the provisions of the IInd schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Superintendent of Taxes attached to the Audit cell cannot be delegated the power of assessment by the Commissioner of Taxes.
Held that TDI was not seeking a review, but rather, a discharge/ modification of the conditions prescribed in the said interim order. Accordingly, Arbitral Tribunal was entitled to exercise the said option, having regard to the principles enshrined under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC.
On 1.4.2007, the assessee took centralised registration and thereafter, the payment was not made until the show cause notice was issued. So the contention of the respondent bank that there was no suppression nor any mis-statement cannot be accepted. Section 73 of the Act gives extended period of limitation if there is suppression or misstatement or fraud or collusion.
Held that option is available to the appellant to claim cenvat credit on service tax paid on input services received in its SEZ units instead of claiming benefit of exemption notification.
HC held that an Order under Section 241A of the Act cannot be passed in a mechanical and routine manner. Refunds cannot be withheld just because the Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued and the Respondents want to verify the claim for deduction under Section 10AA of the Act.
