These appeals are against an order dated 31-3-2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Bench, Chennai, allowing the appeals, being I.T.A.Nos.262 and 263/Mds/2015, in relation to the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2012-2013 filed by the respondent Revenue and restoring the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Sections 271E and 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the IT Act).
Any inclusion or exclusion of comparables per se cannot be treated as a question of law unless it is demonstrated to the Court that the Tribunal or any other lower authority took into account irrelevant consideration or excluded relevant factors in the ALP determination that impact significantly.
The Delhi High Court held that the entire premise of the reassessment notices in this case is that the nondisclosure of the taxing event, i.e. allotment of shares (and the absence of any declaration as to value) deprived the AO of the opportunity to look into the records.
Pravin Natvarlal Modh Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) In the instant case the petitioner is holding a certificate as a sale tax practitioner from the year 1977. In 1983 he enrolled as a an advocate under the state bar council of Gujarat. The VAT authorities initiated misconduct proceedings under section 81 of the […]
Daman Computers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) Neither before the Assessing Officer nor at the appellate stage, Appellants adduced any convincing evidence to hold that it had retained its control over the manufacture of electronic computers at the factory premises of M/s. Kobian ECS India Pvt. Ltd. in Silvassa. In fact, the observations in the findings […]
CIT Vs M/s. Radaan Media Works (Madras High Court) Department fairly admitted that the brand equity of a sum of Rs.75 lakhs valued at a sum of Rs.75 lakhs would be an intangible right coming within the purview of ‘business or commercial rights’ of a similar nature. He also brought to our notice the decision of this High Court […]
During the course of assessment, the assessing authority has alleged that the petitioner is not eligible to claim any input tax credit as the goods purchased by the petitioner on which input tax credit is claimed are not resold within a period of six months from the date of purchase. Such allegation was raised based on the special provision contained in Rule 53(6)(b) of the MVAT Rules, 2005.
Champa Devi Vs Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) (Madras High Court) In the instant case, the respondent has issued the impugned notice and the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court and filed this writ petition. In my considered view, this writ petition is not the proper remedy, which the petitioner should have availed. In this regard, it is relevant […]
Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that he has received instructions to the State that in 26th meeting of GST Council held on 10-3-2018 it has been decided that no GST/Service Tax is leviable on the fee paid for grant of license sale of liquor for human consumption
N & N Chopra Consltants Pvt. Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner, Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise (Delhi High Court) The facts of this case, in the opinion of this court, notes that the assessee was aware about its service tax liability; despite this knowledge, it filed its returns claiming that no liabilities were attracted. […]
