Since assessee failed to demonstrate that the conditions of the bid for purchase of gold jewellery required assessee to effect payments in cash and there was no explanation as to what stopped assessee from effecting payments through banking channel, therefore, AO was justified in disallowing the cash purchase of jewellery under section 40A(3).
Observing that the adjudicating authority had not come to the conclusion that the product sold was entirely different and there was nothing on record to disbelief the Chartered Accountant’s certificate stating that both the products were one and the same, Madras High Court has allowed the appeal against the CESTAT Order denying SAD refund.
Payment of salaries made to nuns, sisters, priests or fathers for rendering their services as Teachers in schools which receive Grant-in-aid from the State Government under the Grant-in-Aid Schemes and bound by the Canon Law were liable for tax deduction under section 192 as neither Income Tax Department nor State Government had anything to do with the religious character of the Institution, might be Teachers or Nuns or Missionaries and therefore, they could not take a stand for not making the tax deduction at source in view of the Canon Law.
The parameters to be taken into account in considering the grant of stay of disputed demandare well settled – the existence of a prima facie case, financial stringency and the balance of ‘Financial stringency’ would include within its ambit the question of ‘irreparable injury’ and ‘undue hardship’ as well.
Grundfos Pumpas India Ltd. Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) The appellate authority, after considering the submissions made by the Assessee as well as the detailed note submitted by the Assessee, held that the provision has been made by the Assessee on a scientific basis and it is an ascertained liability. Examining the nature of business […]
No necessity for Department to have launched prosecution hurriedly when the case was pending before lower authorities as the law of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. for criminal prosecution had been excluded by the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974.
Penalty u/s 271D and 271 E was leviable as there was absolutely no genuinity or bonafideness in the transaction done between the promoter/ director and assessee- company.
M. Sougoumarin Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) High Court held that there was no such reason for regular loan transactions of borrowing and repayment in cash of amounts exceeding Rs.20,000/- so as to escape penal liability under Sections 271E and 271D of the IT Act. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT These […]
Janardhanam Balaji Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Right of appeal is not automatic. When statute confers a limited right of appeal only in a case which involves substantial question of law, it is not open to sit in appeal over factual findings arrived at by AO, CIT(A) and Appellate Tribunal. Hence, appeal was not entertained. […]
In case an order is passed without following a prescribed procedure, the entire proceedings would not be vitiated. It would still be possible for authority to proceed further after complying with the particular procedure.
