Income Tax : Question - What is Krishi Kalyan Cess? Answer - An enabling provision is being made to levy Krishi Kalyan Cess on all taxable serv...
Goods and Services Tax : ♠ Input Tax Credit means credit of input tax. ♠ Every taxable person is entitled to take credit of input tax. ♠ Input tax me...
Goods and Services Tax : This act may be called the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2016. It extends to whole India. IGST applicable on all supplies...
Corporate Law : a cheque in the electronic form means a cheque drawn in electronic form by using any computer resource and signed in a secure sys...
Goods and Services Tax : This act may be called the Central GST Act, 2016 (CGST) / State GST Act, 2016 (SGST). It extends to the whole India. In case of SG...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that as per agreement, the deferred consideration is payable over a period of four years and the formula pr...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. Rachana Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. & M/s. Repute Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that in th...
Income Tax : It is held that Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the...
Income Tax : Calcutta High Court held In the case of ADIT vs. Sh. Dhan Singh Sharma that clause 244A (1) (b) is residual in nature which prescr...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Hassan Ali Khan vs. DCIT that the assessee claiming that he has no bank account or based on transf...
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principle CIT vs. Matchless Glass Services Pvt. Ltd. that the fact that a common address is shared by several companies may not be a sole ground to doubt the identity or the creditworthiness of the companies
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Abhinandan Investment Ltd. that there is no necessity or occasion for trader to separately determine the cost of acquisition of each item of goods sold by him; he is only required to prepare a trading account while reflecting the aggregate sales and purchases.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Bausch & Lomb Eye care (India) Pvt. Ltd. that in the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined transaction to tax is not possible. The decisions in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 307 ITR 75 (SC) make this position clears.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principle CIT vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. that the Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gopi Apartments: (2014) 365 ITR 411 (All.) has held that even in cases where the assessing officer of the person searched and the assessee who is sought to be assessed under Section 153C is the same
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Vishishth Chay Vyapar Ltd. that the legal requirement that the reason to believe must be predicated on tangible material or information” and that the belief must be rational and bear a direct nexus to the material on which such a belief is based” was not fulfilled in the present case.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Shri Parasram Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that the present case is related to change of opinion. This is so, because in the questionnaire, the AO specifically raised the issue with regard to the validity of shareholdings.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Triune Energy Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that if ITAT have no doubt on slump sale agreement and do not thinks that it is a colourable device than the agreement between the parties must be accepted in its totality.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Paras Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that the settled legal position as far as Section 145 is concerned is that it is not open to an AO to reject the accounts of an Assessee unless he comes to a determination that notified accounting standards have not been regularly followed by the Assessee.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Vinod Kumar Khatri vs. DCIT that revised return relate back to return originally filed, minus the omissions and wrong statements. Even if the revised return replaces the original return, the assessment proceedings leading up to the revised return do not get obliterated.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT that the Court is satisfied that in the present case, the Assessee is carrying on business as an independent enterprise and is incurring AMP expenses for its own benefit and not at the behest of the AE.
