whether the tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer has not recorded his mandatory satisfaction as required under Section 14A(2) of the Act?
whether the non-filing of prescribed Form No.62 for the third Assessment Year is restrict the Assessee to carry forward losses under Section 72A of the Income TaxAct, 1961?
whether Sales Return transactions which are erroneously shown it in sales tax return as sales can be rectified eventually after submission of CA certificate alongwith the concern Invoice memos?
CIT Vs Archean Granites Private Ltd. (Madras High Court) The purpose of the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 is to solve the anomalies that the insertion of section 40(a)(ia) was causing to the bona fide tax payer. The amendment, even if not given operation retrospectively, may not materially be of consequence to the […]
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.
