CIT Vs. Mitsubishi Corporation India P. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Due to difference of opinion on below issues between Justices S Muralidhar and Prathiba M Singh, Delhi High Court, has referred the Mitusubishi’s TDS case to Chief Justice for appropriate orders:- (i) Whether the ITAT fell into error in holding that Section 40(a) (i) of […]
In the present case, it is stated that the Petitioner has already paid the Clean Energy Cess under Chapter VII of the Finance Act, 2010 CFA 2010′) on the coal lying in stock on 30th June, 2017. Such stock is stated to be around 2,85,418 tonnes, on which the cess already paid is to an extent of Rs. 11.41 crores.
Commissioner cannot refuse to entertain a revision petition filed by the assessee under Section 264 of the Act if it is maintainable on the ground that a similar issue has arisen for consideration in another year and is pending adjudication in appeal or another forum.
It is a manifest procedure that before filing of the Income Tax return for the assessment year 2007-2008 by the petitioner, the same is scrutinized, firstly, by the auditors of the company. Secondly, by the directors of the company before endorsing their signatures on the final Balance Sheet. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a mere accounting mistake.
Pr. CIT Vs Makemy Trip India Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. The difference of opinion between the CIT(A) and the TPO, as to the appropriateness of one or the other methods, cannot per se be a ground for interference; the appropriateness of […]
Court would like to observe that CAs ought to maintain the highest level of ethics and integrity, not only in the interest of their clients but also to ensure that probity and sanctity are not compromised in any manner as CAs are not merely professionals engaged by their clients, but are protectors and guardians of financial markets on which a nation depends.
Merely because a card game of rummy was played in the club premises with small stakes from a few annas to some rupees would not make it gambling as held by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. K. Satyanarayana & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 825
Commissioner cannot refuse to entertain a revision petition filed by the assessee under Section 264 of the Act if it is maintainable on the ground that a similar issue has arisen for consideration in another year and is pending adjudication in appeal or another forum.
U.P. Distillers Association Vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) In this case Assessee urged that, in any event, the cancellation could not have been from inception but only from the date Parliament amended Section 12AA, i.e. from 01.10.2004. HC held that that the cancellation of registration in this case could have related back only from the […]
Where in case of reassessment proceedings stay was granted by court and thereafter stay was vacated, the reassessment order was to be passed within 60 days from the date of vacation of stay, AO was not justified in saying that the period of 60 days should be counted from the date of receipt of order in office since it was not aware of the order.
