Conclusion: Where assessee trust could not file audit report as its accounts having been seized were released for quite a shorter time period before filing of return, however, the audit report had been filed along with revised return filed by assessee even before last date prescribed for completion of assessment, AO was not justified in denying exemption under section 11.
Rule 44 A is challenged as being ultra vires Section 140 of the CGST Act as well as the rule making powers under Section 164 thereof. It is contended that the impugned Notification is in grossly discriminatory and unreasonable and has imposed the restrictions which are applicable only to imported gold dore bars
This writ petition by Yum! Restaurants Asia PTE Ltd. under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeks the quashing of a notice dated 28th March 2012 issued by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (hereinafter the Assessing Officer or AO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06.
The challenge in this petition is to the constitutional validity of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 (‘Act’). The context in which the challenge is laid is that the Petitioner is a trader of imported and Indian coal having its operation in various parts of the country. Prior to the impugned Act, under the Finance Act, 2010 (‘FA 2010’), with effect from 1st July 2010, a ‘Clean Energy Cess’ was levied under Chapter VII
The Delhi High Court has directed the CBI to consider the application of an RTI activist seeking information about corruption within the central investigating body and action taken into allegations made by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal of shady probe into the coalgate scam pursuant to a news report.
Services provided by Indian tour operators to foreign tourists during the period 1st July 2012 to 1st July 2017, which has been paid for in convertible foreign exchange would not be amenable to service tax.
Delhi High Court has held in the case of Systra Sa Project Office Vs Dispute Resolution Panel that action of the DRP in providing only 3 days time to file a long list of documents and later on refusing to take them on record is against principles of natural justice.
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 28th October, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA NO. 476/Del./2014 for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2010-2011. 2. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income […]
The legal position in respect of an accommodation entry provider seeking the benefit of ‘peak credit’ appears to have been totally overlooked by the ITAT in the present case. Indeed, if the Assessee as a self-confessed accommodation entry provider wanted to avail the benefit of the ‘peak credit’, he had to make a clean breast […]
In this Question arose for consideration was whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 could be levied in respect of an addition not having been made in quantum/assessment proceedings and it was held that Imposition of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is strictly circumscribed to addition which has been made/confirmed in the […]
