Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of assessment was a result of mere change of opinion, even when there is no opinion formed or expressed by the Assessing Officer on this issue in the original assessment?
Where the books of accounts maintained by contractors were not accepted by the Department, the estimation of profit made on the basis of history of Gross Profit rate and Net Profit rate of assessee in the previous years or comparable cases of contractors could be made. Once such profit rates were compared, the additions on account of non confirmation or non production of the sub contractors, etc. was totally irrelevant and could not be made.
The Madras High Court issued the notice to the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of GST for various issues related to Input Tax Credit, its transitional provisions and concern time limit.
Since assessee-contractor carried out work for laying down road in a thermal power plant, therefore, there was no question of not incurring of expenditure by assessee to carry on road work contracts but the disallowance of whole expenditure towards sub contract work by AO for want of proper bills was not justified instead disallowance of 10% of expenses made by appellate authorities was justified.
Madras High Court upheld the requirement which mandates that the IP should pay a fee calculated at 0.25% of the professional fee earned for services rendered as an IP in the preceding financial year to the IBBI.
the objective of the Dispute Resolution Scheme is to reduce legacy tax disputes and therefore, fairness should be there while interpreting the provisions of the scheme.
High Court states that by taking into consideration the situation of COVID-19 pandemic, court directed officer to de-freeze the bank account maintained by the petitioner.
The issue under consideration is whether the petition filed by the CA for seeking to direct the Institute of Cost Accountants of India to use the acronym ‘ICOAI’ instead of ‘ICAI’ will be sustain by the High Court?
The issue under consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest expenditure is Capital in nature
The issue under consideration is whether the foreign currency expenditure need to be excluded from the ‘export turnover’ of the assessee for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10AA of the Act?
