Whether the Tribunal is correct in not confirming the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) made by the Assessing Officer when the assessee did not comply with requirements of Sub-Section 7 of Section 194C read with Rule 31A?.
Shri Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain Vs DCIT (Exemptions) (Madras High Court) The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 02.04.2009, which was processed and intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 21.01.2011. Thus, there was no assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee, while filing […]
The issue under consideration is whether the denial of assessee’s application u/s 264 on the ground that assessee not having filed revised return within prescribed time is justified in law?
It is to be noted that right to credit or forfeit such deposit would arise only after determination of the liability to pay the ‘duty’. On the other hand, the right over the duty so paid is instant on the revenue and not a postponed entitlement.
Court would like to emphasis that the Law University, being a Public Institution, is bound to implement the provisions of the Right to Information Act, scrupulously in its letter and spirit.
Mere non quoting of the reasons for reopening by AO in the impugned notice would not vitiate the entire proceedings. Department had to furnish the reasons to assessee and on receipt of the reasons, if assessee were of the opinion that there were no additional material or new materials were available then they could submit their objections in respect of the change of opinion or reason to believe.
Smt. R. Santha Vs CIT (Madras High Court) There can be no allegation against the assessee of diversion assessee and her husband, who had established the dhall mill and that the assesee is at an advantage in obtaining finished product from her husband’s dhall mill and she will be assured of time delivery of the processed dhall and assured of quality […]
CIT Vs M/s. Vaani Estates Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid provisions, we are of the opinion that the learned Assessing authority was required to undertake the exercise of fact finding by determining the Fair Market Value of the Shares in question as required […]
Section 45(4) would not be attracted on the retirement of the two partners and consequential allotment of their share in the assets in the assessee-firm as there was no element of transfer of interest in the partnership assets by the retiring partner to the continuing partners.
(i) Section 110(1)(b)(iii) of the CGST Act which states that a Member of the Indian Legal Services, who has held a post not less than Additional Secretary for three years, can be appointed as a Judicial Member in GSTAT, is struck down. (ii) Section 109(3) and 109(9) of the CGST Act, 2017, which prescribes that the tribunal shall consists of one Judicial Member, one Technical Member (Centre) and one Technical Member (State), is struck down.
