ITAT Allahabad held that passing an ex-parte appellate order without providing any opportunity even in case of faceless assessment proceedings unjustified as adherence to Principles of natural justice is one of the most important pillar of the effective judicial delivery system.
Supreme Court held that without the compressors and the pipes necessary to pump the dredged material, the cutter dredger would cease to function as such. Accordingly, benefit of NIL rate of duty in terms of notification no. 21/2002-CUS dated 01.03.2002 duly available.
ITAT Chennai held that as computer and robotix kit is totally different, depreciation @15% and not @60% available on Robotix kits.
ITAT Amritsar held that non-receipt of intimation resulted into no action on the part of the assessee. Accordingly delay of 9 years condoned as the assessee had reasonable cause of non-receipt of intimation
Sumit Jagdishchandra Agrawal Vs DCIT (Gujarat high court) All original notices under section 148 referable to old regime and issued between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 would stand beyond prescribed permissible timeline of six years from end of assessment year 2013-14 and assessment year 2014-15. Therefore, all such notices when they would relate to assessment year 2013-14 […]
ITAT Cochin held that as per condition mentioned in section 54F deduction is not available if the assessee owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset. The same should be interpreted to mean ownership of residential houses in India. Accordingly, deduction u/s. 54F not deniable if assessee owns two residential houses in USA
ITAT Jaipur held that non-compliance inspite of repeated notices/ summons has led to gross negligence on the part of the assessee and accordingly matter restored back and cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed for negligent attitude during income tax proceedings.
Madras High Court held that section 125 is a residuary provision and as there are three specific non-compliances qua statutory requirements, penalty u/s. 125 of Rs. 25,000 each can be invoked for such non-compliances.
In re Puranik Builders Limited (GST AAAR Maharashtra) Insofar as the challenge to the levy of service tax on taxable services as defined under section 65(105) (zzzzu) is concerned, we do not find any merit in the contention that there is no element of service involved in the preferential location charges levied by a builder. […]
In re Seshadri Srikanth (The I.L.E.CO) (GST AAR Tamilnadu) Applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of the Act. Whether supply of scientific and technical instruments, apparatus, equipment to their customer M/S. Mahesh Value Products Pvt. Ltd. is eligible for concessional rate of GST @ 5% as per the Notification No. 45/2017-Central Tax (Rate) […]
