erely stating that the tax effect was low in an earlier order resulting in not filing of an appeal across the bar, without the same being specifically put in affidavit or in the appeal memo cannot be accepted. This manner of filing of appeals enables the revenue to pick and choose orders from which appeals are preferred and from which the appeals are not preferred rendering to a naught equal application of law on all.
Is a query is raised during assessment proceedings and responded to by the Assessee, the mere fact that it is not dealt with in the Assessment Order would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it. Section 263
Entire sales which are unaccounted cannot be undisclosed income of the assessee, particularly as the purchase had been accounted for. It was held that only net profit which would arise on such unaccounted sales can rightly be taken as the amount which could be added to the Respondent Assessee’s income for the purpose of tax.
TATA Engineering and Locomotive Co.Ltd.(Now Known as TATA Motors Ltd.)[the Appellant or the Company] is a manufacturer of Motor Vehicles and also engaged in the business of hire finance of Motor Vehicles.
Petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 234E seeks to levy a fee of Rs.200/- per day (subject to certain other conditions as set out therein) inter alia on a person who deducts Tax at Source (TDS) and then fails to deliver or cause to be delivered the TDS return/statements to the authorities within the prescribed period.
In the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise V/s. M/s. Essel Propack Ltd., it was held that prior to year 2006, the Explanation to Rule 2(p) of the CENVAT credit Rules would be applicable. On plain reading of the said explanation, as it is not disputed that the respondents are paying service tax
The Tribunal should pass a fresh order not only in relation to the objection raised by the Assessee to the exercise of powers under section 263 of the IT Act, but on the merits of the claim as well. Merely because such an opportunity is given by us does not mean that the Tribunal is obliged
Bombay High Court was annoyed for filing appeal in a matter covered by a binding precedent of the Apex Court. The Court sought an explanation from the counsel for the Income Tax Department why appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act has been filed by him when there was an authoritative
We are afraid that if the Revenue persists with such stand and as has been turned down repeatedly, that would defeat the very object and purpose of the schemes and packages devised by the States. That would also result in frustrating the entrepreneurs and defeating the purpose
We do not find how Officers lower down in the hierarchy can take decisions to file Appeals and that too against the decision of the Tribunal. The tendency not to accept any adverse verdict on facts results in frivolous Appeals being filed in this Court.
