Shri Rahul Sharma Vs Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd.(National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Brief facts of the case are that an application dated 31.07.2018 was filed, under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering by the Respondent, by not passing on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from […]
Whether increase in threshold by CG through notification for initiating CIRP is prospective or retrospective in effect?
Liability of Purchase Tax under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Value-added Tax Act, 2006 was not attracted in case assessee’s turnover was also below Rs. 300 Crores during the year.
International Flavours and Fragrances India Private Limited Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the notice issued u/s 147 for re-opening the assessment is justified in law? Petitioner is engaged in manufacture of flavour essences, mixed seasoning powders (dry mix) and formulated perfumery compounds etc. The petitioner started a new manufacturing […]
ACIT Vs PNB Gilts Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether diminution or reduction in price of the stock-in-trade can be allowed while computing business income? In the given case, the assessee, PNB Gilts Ltd is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), filed its return of income declaring total income. The return of income […]
B. M. Sarin Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The appeal filed before us is delayed by 125 days. The assessee received the order of the ld CIT(A) on 15.09.2018, however, the appeal was filed on 18.12.2019. The assessee preferred request for condonation of delay stating that when the order of the ld CIT(A) was received, the […]
Reassessment was justified by the income tax department against former Indian Cricket Team Captain Krishnamachari Srikanth and non compete fee of Rs. 7.50 crores was exempt from tax being capital receipt;
The issue under consideration that whether the Department was justified in disallowing the refund of claim on the ground that the petitioner was still in business and was adjusting the amount regularly?
As such the Development Commissioner appointed under section 11 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 is neither a proper officer within the meaning of Section 2(34) the Customs Act, 1962 nor a Central Excise Officer for the purpose of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to demand excise duty vide impugned show cause notice.
Shri I. Seshagiri Rao Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) The issue under consideration is whether the capital gains will be applicable where assessee signed a release deed waiving all his rights, title and interests in the property? During the assessment, the A.O. found that the assessee had entered into a release deed and also a supplementary […]
