HPL Additive Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by A.O. u/s 41(1) treating the outstanding as cessation of liability is justified in law? During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to furnish complete details of sundry creditors. After perusing the details, AO noticed that […]
The reasons recorded for reopening of the assessee are very foundation of the reassessment proceedings. However, same analogy can also be applied in ongoing ‘Limited Scrutiny’ in which the AO has been directed to examine the only specified limited issues and this stand of the assessee can ignite the litigation.
Ramanand & Others Vs Dr. Girish Soni and Another (Delhi High Court) Amidst the outbreak of COVID-19, An application for suspension of rent has been moved to Delhi High Court. It is pleaded that tenants are entitled to wavier of the monthly payouts or at least some partial relief in terms of suspension, postponement or […]
In re Mahalakshmi Mahila Sangha (GST AAR Karnataka) The supply of services made by the applicant in the form of supply of food and drinks to the educational institutions is covered under entry no. 66 of Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and entry 66 of Notification (12/2017) No. FD 48 CSL 2017 dated 29.06.2017 and […]
Haresh Khiamal Nanwani Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The issue under consideration is whether ACIT is correct in treating the sale of investments in immovable properties as a business activity rather than considering it as capital gains, in spite of the appellant holding the flats for more than 36 months. Assessee state that, he had shown […]
Suit ought not to have been rejected outright under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the pleas taken by the appellants/plaintiffs were barred under Section 4(3) of the unamended Benami Act. It would therefore be imperative to weigh the evidence in the instant case for the court to conclusively decide as to whether the appellants/plaintiffs can succeed in their claim that the respondent No.1 was holding the suit premises in a fiduciary capacity, for the benefit of all the family members.
Comparison of activities undertaken /functions performed was important for determining the comparability between controlled and uncontrolled transactions/entity.
Bimla Devi D/o. Shri Phool Chand Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) without discussing merit of the case is justified in law? ITAT studied the matter and state that it is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal […]
The issue under consideration is whether the officer is correct in rejecting claim for deduction u/s 10AA of the Act on the amount of transfer pricing adjustment voluntarily made by the assessee?
The issue under consideration is whether the Seizure of consignments by Assam Excise Officers in a process of transaction of export from Arunachal Pradesh and imported to Nagaland via Assam route is justified in law?
