The issue required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the services obtained by the appellant for removal of coal fly ash from the captive power plant which is used for generation of power, which in turn, is captively consumed for manufacture of excisable goods, can be held to be an eligible cenvatable input service.
ITAT Kolkata ruling on Anushree Agarwal vs ACIT case. Analysis of disallowed interest and additions. Get insights into the key decisions and conclusions.
CESTAT held that buying and selling of SIM cards and recharge coupons does not amount to providing business auxiliary service (BAS)
Suo motu credit of Cenvat reversed earlier involved only an account entry reversal and in the process, no outflow of funds from the assesse and accordingly, filing of refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not required.
Prasanta Kumar Mishra Vs ACIT (ITAT Cuttack) Admittedly, the assessee individual is a non-resident Indian and the facts clearly show that the return has been filed with mistakes. These mistakes can admittedly be rectified by filing a rectification application. The rectification application admittedly is not being considered on account of the limitation provided u/s. 154(7) […]
PMS performance fees cannot be estimated before hand for the purpose of calculation of advance tax payable during the year because of uncertainty about the equity market since the performance fees can be ascertained by the assessee only on the last day of the year based on the stock market position as at the end of that day. I
Since the revised return of income was filed on 19.03.2015 u/s 139(4) of the Act, it was a valid revised return as per the law in force at that time. In such a scenario, the AO ought to have considered the revised return of income for assessing the income of assessee.
Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Writ Court should not scrutinise an adjudicating authority’s decision itself, by acting as an appellate authority over such order of the authority and substitute the findings of an authority by reappreciating the evidence and material and more particularly the nature of a case like this.
There is no evidence of any construction activity or of the fact that assessee has invested the proceeds in statutory deposits and then spent any proceeds of the sales consideration of two properties he had sold, into the construction over this plot. Thus the property in which part investments of capital gains was done continued to be plot for all purposes and intent, for the assessee in the period when construction was to atleast to be started, if not completed.
Assessment year involved for reopening of assessment is assessment year 2016-2017 and appropriate authority for grant of approval in such case are authorities under Section 151(ii) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
