According to AO, the provisions were not allowable who vide show cause notice asked assessee to furnish details of the provisions made as well as justification for the claim and the assessee did not file any reply to the show cause notice issued.
Mere uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal might not be sufficient to fulfill the requirement of proper service, especially when it prevented assessee from being aware of the proceedings.
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty order under section 272A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act has to be passed within reasonable time. Since, the penalty order is not passed within reasonable time, the same is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Jaipur held that once the jewellery and silver articles are considered as belonging to the family as a whole, there does not remain any unexplained gold jewellery. Hence, addition towards unexplained gold jewellery is liable to be deleted.
Delhi High Court disposed of writ petitions as domestic industry no longer presses for imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty [ADD]. Thus, writ petitions are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
Supreme Court held that when a cell phone is sold along with a charger there is only one Maximum Retail Price and hence charger cannot be taxed separately under Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2007 [UP VAT Act].
The assessee acts as a corporate agent for Max Life Insurance Company in respect of marketing it’s insurance policies. The assessee charges commission from Max Life in lieu of rendering such services.
Karnataka High Court held that interest under section 201 of the Income Tax Act and late filing fee under section 234E leviable for non-deduction of TDS from sale consideration paid to Bengaluru Development Authority [BDA] for allotment of made by BDA.
Assessee was specifically asked to justify its claim as the agreement had to be with (a) Central Government (b) State Government (c) Local Authority or (d) Statutory Authority and LMRCL did not fit in any of the four categories.
Appellant had approached this Court by way of the present intra Court appeal. It was held that BoD had failed to accord any reason as to how the mere act of dishonor of cheques issued by assessee would amount to misconduct.
