Pankajkumar Babulal Tiwari Vs ACIT (ITAT Amhadabad) Asessee under the bona fide belief not offered income on receipt from LIC in original return however rectified the same while filing the return under section 148 of the Act. The assessee also paid due tax on such receipt even before issuance of notice under section 148 of […]
After lapse of 10 years second impugned notice dated 30th October, 2017 was issued to the Petitioner asking him to appear for hearing. The Petitioner filed an application dated 9th November, 2017 before the authority expressing its inability to collect documents after such a long lapse of time.
ITO Vs Sk. Sahanewaj Ali (ITAT Kolkata) CBDT had modified Circular No. 3 of 2018 dt. 11/07/2018. Further, the CBDT in its circular F. No. 279/Misc./M-93/2018-ITJ, dt. 20/08/2019, has clarified that the revised monetary limits, so mentioned in Circular No. 17/2019 is applicable to all pending appeals. As per these circulars all the revenue appeals […]
Sole issue for determination is ‘whether amendment made by Finance Act, 2014 to Section 40(a)(ia) is to be applied retrospectively or not’.
ITC Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Whether the IDSC/ICNC debit note raised by Bhadrachalam Unit have to be considered as a component of cost of raw materials of the appellant and Whether the unabsorbed overheads due to idle capacity have to be included in the cost of production? n the case of […]
The respondent has since revoked the suspension of the petitioner’s registration and the same is active. It is also stated that the respondent has issued a demand notice dated 15.02.2023 under Section 73(5) raising a demand of ₹6,37,916.00/-. The said demand notice also states that in the event the demand is not paid, a Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1) would be issued.
It was wrongly noted that the Assessee has not filed any return of income, when in fact Assessee had filed its return. It was further wrongly noted that the Assessee has not preferred appeal against the assessment order when in fact the Petitioner had filed the aforementioned appeal.
K.Chiranjeevi Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) The Central Information Commission (in short ‘CIC’) in the case of Shir Milap Choraria V. Central Board of Direct Taxes (Appeal No.CIC/AT/2008/00628 dated 15.06.2009), was concerned with the request for disclosure of income tax returns and financials of a third party, and at paragraph 12, the Bench […]
Calcutta High Court held that computation of award amount without multiplying the amount with the multiplier 13 is unjustifiable.
CESTAT Bangalore held that amount taxed in the hands of partner u/s 28(v) needs to be allowed in the hands of the firm u/s 40(b) of the Income Tax Act.
