A mere making of a wrong, though bona fide claim of depreciation, which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, such wrong claim will not automatically invite penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Section 54 no where defines the quantum of construction on the land so as to be eligible to be defined as a residential unit. The only condition is that there should be a residential house capable of being used as a residence by any person.
R.S. Infra-Transmission Ltd Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) The contention of Mr. R.B. Mathur is that Rule 18 will take care of the situation. However, while considering the matter, we have to look into the matter whether the benefit envisaged under the Rajasthan VAT Act especially under sub-Section (1) shall be allowed only […]
That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 1010.2017 (Annex.13) passed by the Respondent No.4, impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.3.2005 (Annex.9) and impugned order – in – Appeal dated. 12.8.2015 (Annex.10) may kindly be quashed and set aside
PIL filed before Rajasthan High court challenging GST Act provision of constitution of Authority for Advance Ruling and Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling admitted
Ravindra Arora Vs ACIT (Rajasthan High Court) Tribunal refused to decide the fresh issue with regard to deemed dividend simply because it was raised at the appellate stage was not justified as legal issue can be raised in appeal at any point of time. Hence, order passed by the Tribunal was quashed and set aside […]
In our considered opinion, the production is the same, manufacturing and the process is the same and excise duty is liable on the manufacturing, merely because in the certificate there is no mention of MS Special, the taxing statute will not be different. In view thereof, the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is required.
Ajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. CIT (Rajasthan High Court) What is to be considered is that for being granted benefit under sub-section (37) of section 10 of the Act, the land in question should have been put to agricultural use by the assessee for the preceding two years. Even if we accept the contention of the […]
The Revenue entertained a view that the amount received by the appellant in the name of facilitation fee, is commission from various shops and emporia for providing services of promoting or marketing or selling of goods provided or belonging to the emporia/shops, is liable to Service Tax under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ in terms of clause 19(i) of Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994.
In all these appeals common question of law and facts are involved hence they are decided by this common judgment.
