It was held by Supreme Court in Karnani Properties Ltd vs. CIT [1972 AIR 2315, 1972 SCR (1) 457] that it is for the Tribunal to find facts and it is for the High Court and this Court to lay down the law applicable to the facts found. Neither the High Court nor this Court has jurisdiction, to go behind or to question the statements of facts made by the Tribunal.
If the unaccounted expenditure incurred is from the on money received by the assessee, then, the question of making any addition u/s 69C does not arise because the source of the expenditure is duly explained. It is only the ‘on money’ which can be considered for the purpose of taxation.
High Court held that (I) We hold that e-recharge is not covered by the Item No. 133 of the Government Notification dated 28th March 2013 and that in any event, LBT cannot be levied on erecharge; (II) We reject the contention of the petitioner that the LBT is not payable on the SIM cards and […]
High Court held that Tribunal’s order is confusing. In the impugned order, the Tribunal does not indicate what it means by AOP. It does not indicate as to what it means by TAS for both sides tell us that it is identical to TDS, namely, Tax Deducted at Source. We are unhappy with the abbreviations […]
Though the name of the respondent assessee is distinct in each of these Appeals, it is agreed that the Revenue is proposing similar questions in all of them. These Appeals of the Revenue arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal and taking a view that the grounds raised are covered, in majority of the cases, by the earlier order of the Tribunal.
Bombay High Court quashed and set aside an order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) which directed a probe into the ‘cartelisation’ charge leveled against Vodafone India, Idea Cellular and Bharti Airtel Limited, by Reliance Jio.
A educational coaching is covered by the expression coaching centre as defined in section 65(26) and (27). That it is not on commercial basis or predominantly for profit is the only argument canvassed throughout.
Bombay High Court held in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Parle Bisleri Ltd. that Procedural rules cannot be ignored even litigant is Government/ Revenue and Revenue should not follow tendency of blaming Advocate or procedural rules for dismissal of appeal
Advisory services provided by CRISIL does not fall under category of Management Consultancy Services and is correctly classified under the Banking and other Financial Services.
S. 68: Argument that the assessee did not maintain books of account and so s. 68 will not apply is not acceptable. It is incumbent on every assessee doing business to maintain proper books of account. It may be in any form. If the assessee has not done so, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Burden lies on the assessee to show from where he has received the amount and what is its nature
