The assessee’s connection is not correct as the information available with this office that the assessee trust has deposited cash of Rs. 33,97,775/- in the Bank Account. Further, if at all any cash transaction has been done that issue will be examined at the time of re-assessment proceedings. A.O. made satisfaction and recorded reason that I have reason to believe that cash deposited in bank by the trust, ought to have brought to has escaped the assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act.
(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,04,369 by considering the same to be service tax? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 53,600 made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
In the present case, we have noted that in case of Karta of HUF in his individual capacity under identical circumstances, application for condonation of delay based on identical grounds came to be accepted by the Revenue. In same set of facts and same situation, there cannot be a differential treatment. Merely because one application was decided by the Commissioner and another by the Chief Commissioner cannot be a point of distinction.
Petitioner No.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act. Petitioner No.2 is one of its share holders. Petitioner-company is engaged in supply of wheat flour, meslin flour, cereal flour etc. Such activity would invite SGST and CGST at prescribed rates. However, even this is a matter of dispute between the two sides.
Gujarat High Court rules partnership firm discharged onus under Section 68 by identifying partner & confirming contribution; creditworthiness inquiry is on partner.
Gujarat High Court has issued notice to the Union of India, Gujarat State government and the Goods and Service Tax Council on a petition moved by CA Prateek Gattani and Abhishek Chopra challenging the constitution of the Central as well as State Appellate Tribunals.
Petitioner Sajeev Ezhava, filed public interest litigation before Hon’ble Gujarat High Court contending that the parking fee collected by malls and commercial establishments is illegal and against the basis of exempting them from municipal taxes.
Mehsana District Co-operative Vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court) Subrule (7) of rule 10THD thus lays down the time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass an order under subrule(4) and for the concerned competent authority to pass an appropriate order under subrule(6). We may recall under subrule(4), the Assessing Officer may declare that the option […]
No addition can be made solely on the basis of a retracted statement made during the survey operation, particularly, when proper justification for retraction was also offered.
Where dis allowance was made by revenue under section 14A in respect of interest and administrative expenses, it was made clear that where assessee had its own surplus fund, then no question of any estimation of expenditure under rule 8D would arise. Thus, revenue was not justified in disallowing interest and administrative expenses, when the same was made out of interest free fund.
