The petitioner’s challenge has principally three elements viz., [a] having paid the tax under IGST Act on the entire value of imports; inclusive of the ocean freight, the petitioner cannot be asked to pay tax on the ocean freight all over again under a different notification;
Where the value of stock shown to bank for purpose of availing of higher credit facility was based on market rate and not at cost price but there was no difference in quantitative details, no addition under section 69B could be made.
Two-judge bench of the Gujarat High Court comprising Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice A.Y. Kogje in the case of Meena Krishna Agarwal Versus Assistant Commissioner decided that Tax Arrears of a deceased assessee cannot be recovered out of the personal properties of wife.
Where revision petition was filed by assessee in respect of its individual and also for firm’s return to claim expenses in firm’s return which were claimed in its personal return, CIT was not justified in dismissing revision application without looking into the matter, therefore, it was remanded back to CIT to consider afresh.
In this case the assessee had imported coal prior to the introduction of goods and service tax regime and had already paid clean energy cess at the prescribed rate. On the stock which the petitioner had not cleared, no credit had been allowed on such cess and Department again asked to pay fresh cess under the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017. In view of the fact that the validity of a Union legislation is questioned, court ordered for notice to be issued.
Where assessee was earning exempt income and no dis allowance was made by it and AO was of view that assessee failed to prove that own funds were utilized for investment, therefore, AO proceeded to compute dis allowance of interest paid on borrowed funds, however, it ignored the interest income earned by assessee, AO was not justified since for the purpose of dis allowance net interest expenses were to be taken.
An issue which had been examined in detail during original assessment itself, could not be re-examined in exercise of powers of reassessment, therefore, notice under section 148 was set aside.
Where assessee paid interest on term loan which had entirely been used for purpose of purchasing the assets for purpose of business which were hypothecated to bank and it had sufficient interest-free funds to take care of advances, the deduction under section 36(1)(iii) was allowable.
Assessee sold 3,10,000 shares and claimed resulting gains as exempt under section 10(38). AO denied the exemption on the ground that as the shares were not held by the assessee for more than 12 months period, therefore, same could not be considered as long-term capital assets.
This Court while deciding a Reference needs to keep in mind the limitations of its role. It does not sit in appeal over the decision making process of the Disciplinary Committee and the recommendations so made by the Council of the Institute. Hence in examining the Report and the recommendation of the Council it cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record or assess the findings of the Committee as an Appellate Authority.
