Pendurthi Chandrasekhar Vs DCIT (Andhra Pradesh HC) Conclusion: AO was not justified in adding the amount of Rs. 73,00,000 to the account of assessee received from maternal aunt as the donor herself had given a confirmation letter clearly stating therein that she had transferred the amount and further declaring that she gave the said gift […]
Principal CIT (Exemptions) Vs. Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Held by ITAT The circumstances under which the services rendered by the appellant society to the Banks make clear that there is no profit motive in such activities because these activities were entrusted to the appellant society by the Reserve […]
Pr CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi (Andhra Pradesh High Court) In the present case, the assessee seems to have submitted her explanation on merits without raising a doubt as to what was the precise allegation leveled against her. However, we are more concerned with the principle involved and not just the isolated case of its application […]
A careful look at the reason for Rule 36 being inserted, which cannot be correlated to anyone of the matters enumerated in Clauses (a) to (r) of sub-section (2) of Section 78, will show that in the entire Telangana VAT Act, 2005, the only place where a transfer of business as a whole is spoken […]
Admittedly, the petitioner has lodged a police complaint that her name has been misused in a document in respect of a property of which she is not the owner. Therefore, the matter requires further detail prob.
Bhimas Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Andhra Pradesh High Court) any supply of subsidized food to the workers by the management of a Company, has to be seen as part of the pay package that the workers have negotiated with the employer. Under the Factories Act, 1948 and even under the Industrial Disputes […]
Assessing officers completely erred in reopening assessments on the basis of either a suspicion that there is suppression of income or on the basis that persons in the same line of business are returning a higher income. Without even mentioning the comparables, no initiation of proceedings under section 147 can be made.
Smt. Kavitha Rajakoti Vs. ITO (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Assessing Officer is required to act in a fair manner and need to consider the stay petition independently and pass a speaking order stating reasons as to why the stay application of the petitioner is not required to be considered
B Bala Narasimha Reddy Vs PR.CIT (AP High Court)- In the present case impugned order is bereft of any reasons and further the same has not dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner in his application filed under Section 220(2A) of the Act
In the case of The Commissioner Customs & Central Excise V/s M/s. Panyam Cements & Minerals Industries Ltd. it was held that invoking Section 11A is not mandatory for recovering the wrong refund granted.
