AAR held that GST not applicable on the amount recovered from employees for canteen facility and on amount recovered from employees for transportation facilities provided to them.
Rakeshbeniyal Vs ITO (Madras High Court) By consent of both the parties, this writ petition has been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 19.04.2022, passed by the first respondent under Section 148-A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 […]
As seen from the impugned Assessment Order, the show cause notice was issued by the respondents on 13.12.2022 and the impugned Assessment Order has been passed on 22.12.2022, within a short period even though a request was made by the petitioner by his communication dated 16.12.2022 seeking for ten days time to submit a reply to the show cause notice dated 13.12.2022.
The petitioner has applied under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. Admittedly, he has not paid the entire dues as per the scheme, but he has paid a major portion of it, i.e., 94%.
Several opportunities were given to petitioner to respond to notices sent by Assessing Officer so no violation of Principles of natural justice
Vikas Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that if the cash deposited in assessee’s bank account has already been taxed in the hands of M/s. Kareem’s Hospitality Pvt. Ltd (employer of assessee) or in the hands of the director of the assessee company Mr. Kareem Dhanani then no addition is warranted in the hands […]
Transindia Freight Services Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that going by the principle of consistency in the stand taken by the Revenue in earlier as well as subsequent assessment years in scrutiny assessment proceedings, we hold that the income received from car rental of Rs.6,00,000/- is to be assessed as “income from […]
Calcutta High Court held that in case of accident claim, compensation is to be calculated on gross salary after deducting the professional tax.
Orissa High Court held that cancellation of last pay certificate without clear and unambiguous reasons and not based on any evidence is liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Delhi held that once the department has accepted that the services of appellant is classified under ‘mining services’, it cannot, simultaneously, classify the same under ‘Technical Testing and Analysis’ and demand service tax thereon.
