CIT Vs. M/s Gillette India Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court) Instant appeal is directed against order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and indisputably the tax effect as brought to our notice, is less than Rs. 20 lac. A Circular No. 21/2015 has been issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 10.12.2015 in exercise […]
Pushpa Rajawat Vs CIT (Rajasthan High Court) Since, the original proceedings were pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), without entering into the question of jurisdiction of the Sawaimadhopur assessing officer, the fact remains that the adjudicating authority could not have issued second show cause notice under section 148. In that view of the matter, without entering […]
Depreciation was allowable @10% on public highway road treating the same as building. It was held assessee was granted license for construction against which it had right to use and collect license fee to use of the land. It had right to restrict the people without non payment of toll tax. It was not only road, they had to construct toll booth and provide facilities for the staff for the purpose of their accommodation.
As purchase of inventory is continuation of same business activity, the, proviso to section 36(1)(iii)(d) did not get attracted in case assessee having borrowed funds to purchase inventory, therefore, assessee was duly entitled to claim deduction under section 36(1)(iii).
माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय की डिवीज़न बेंच के न्यायाधीशगण जस्टिस श्री के. एस झवेरी व जस्टिस श्री विजय कुमार व्यास द्वारा Rajasthan Tax Consultants Association vs. Union of India & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15239/2017] के मामले में याचिकाकर्ता एसोसिएशन द्वारा दायर की गई रिट की सुनवाई की गई जिसमे जीएसटीएन पोर्टल में […]
Looking to the averments which are made in the petition and the reply which has been filed, it appears that the system is not working upto the level and the same is required to be corrected & updated to meet requirements.
In case of assessee dealing in foodgrains, investment in unrecorded stock of rice noticed during the course of survey was to be taxed as business income and not as income from other sources as investment in procurement of such stock of rice was clearly identifiable and related to the regular business stock of the assessee.
(i) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in reversing the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and deleting the addition of Rs. 70,04,814 which was surrendered by the assessee by holding that such amount was included in the purchases and was reflected in the sales and closing stock
Assessee entered into a purchase agreement for purchase of a land and later transferred all the rights acquired under the power of attorney for certain consideration, AO applied section 50C and enhanced short-term capital gains of assessee which was not justified since section 50C was not applicable in this scenario as there was no stamp valuation.
Where CIT (A) had annulled original scrutiny assessment concluded under section 143(3) on the legal ground that notice issued under section 143(2) was time-barred, then revenue was precluded to adopt recourse of reassessment under section 147 to correct the mistake committed originally in not issuing notice under section 143(2) in time.
