This Demand Draft was sent along with a notice, dated 22.1.2015. The third respondent has received the demand draft, but, unfortunately, misplaced the same. It is not known, as to how, the Revenue Department of the Corporation can be so careless in misplacing the demand draft, especially, when such amount was directed to be paid, pursuant to the Court order.
The petitioner’s first and foremost contention is that the same transaction cannot be taxed under the Finance Act for service tax and VAT. Further, it is contended that there is no transfer of right to use the goods and the contract between the petitioner and the BPCL is a non-exclusive contract and the installation and facility is used by the petitioner for themselves, for BPCL as well as IOC and the observation of the Assessing Officer that there is a transfer of right in using the goods is an incorrect finding
High Court has held that even if, the claim made by the assessee company does not form part of the original return or even the revised return, it could still be considered, if, the relevant material was available on record, either by the appellate authorities, (which includes both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal) by themselves, or on remand,
When postal authorities collected notice from revenue on 31-3-2015 (last date of expiry of six years from end of relevant assessment year) as per arrangement between revenue and postal department, though such notice was served to assessee later, such notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was not barred by limitation.
The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the sale of tobacco would not attract the provisions of the enactment. He further submits that as per Rule 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations Act, 2011, tobacco shall not be used as ingredients in […]
In B.R Petrochem Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO, the division bench of the Madras High Court held that mere furnishing of identity of shareholders by the asseessee would not sufficient to discharge their onus under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. While confirming the addition made against the assessee, the bench ruled that the assessee must prove the genuineness and credit worthiness of the creditors in order to shift the burden to the department.
Impugned order of assessment was made based on the Web Report, the Assessing Authority is not justified in passing the impugned order of assessment, without furnishing the details of such report and without conducting any enquiry at all levels.
Loss suffered by the assessee on the sale of foreign is quantified at a figure of Rs. 51,6,108/-. The only question that remains is to determine the nature of loss. In view of the categoric finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that has attained finality, to the effect that the foreign cars were utilised in the business of the assessee, the loss arising out of their sale would be liable to be categorised as a business loss.
High Court held that under Expenditure Tax Act 1987 chargeable expenditure would be incurred only upon raising of a composite bill upon conclusion of hotel stay and not earlier.
It cannot be denied that a bogus person should not be accepted as a surety. A person who is offering surety must have acceptable residential proof. He may be a tenant, licensee. A beggar can also stand as surety provided he should have some acceptable residential proof.
