Activity of transportation of iron ore lumps from the mines site to the appellant’s crusher plant does not constitute GTA service in terms of Sec.65(105)(zzp) read with Sec.65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Claudio De Simone & Ors. Vs. Acital Farmaceutica SRL. & Ors. (Delhi High Court); CS(OS) 576/2019, IA No.15741/2019, 17.03.2020 FACTS In the present case, Plaintiff No. 1 was an inventor of a US patent formulation namely; De Simone Formulation. The said formulation is highly concentrated bacterial formulation beneficial for pharmaceutical and dietary indications. In the year […]
The appeal preferred by the Revenue. The issue under consideration is with regard to the bogus purchases conducted by the assessee and as per revenue CIT(Appeals) has erred in granting relief to the assessee without dealing specifically with the facts of the case and even not calling for any remand report from the Assessing Officer.
In the given case, the first issue raised by the assessee is relates to the disallowance of business expenses from the remuneration earned by the assessee from the partnership firm assessed as business income u/s. 28 (v) of the IT Act, 1961.
ITAT do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the assessee. Accordingly we hold that assessee trust is not eligible for standard deduction at the rate of 30% u/s 24 (a) of the act, out of the rental income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee.
The writ petition is not maintainable challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Hon’ble Supreme court in GKN Drive Shafts’ case reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC), clarified the procedure to be followed, when notice is issued under Section 148. Therefore, the petitioner has to follow such procedure including by asking the reasons for reopening the assessment. Upon the request so made, the reasons can be furnished and the petitioner can file objections and the Officer thereafter has to pass a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. In this case, the writ petitioner has not filed the return and on the other hand filed the present writ petition straightaway.
The issue raised by the assessee challenging the action of AO in holding the income from providing IT support services as taxable for fees for technical services.
The issue under consideration is whether the exemption u/s 54 can be denied only with the reason that the new property has been purchased in the name of son and not in the name of that assessee.
Therefore, according to the Finance Act, 2015, prior to 01.06.2015, your good self had no authority to levy fee, if any, under Section 234E of the Act and thus levy of fee under Section 234E of the Act while processing the statement is beyond the scope of Section 200A of the Act.
Parle Hindu Devalaya Mandal Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The dispute in the present appeal is confined to denial of assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a charitable trust and has been granted registration under section 12AA of the Act. For the assessment year under dispute, […]
