Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance vide F. No. 390/Misc./116/2017-JC dated 22.08.2019, seeks permission to withdraw this special leave petition along with pending applications therein due to low tax effect.
Technopolis Premises Co-operative Society Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We are of the considered view that though the co-operative bank pursuant to the insertion of sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P of the Act, however, as a co-operative bank continues to be a co-operative […]
It has also been held that the appellant has deliberately created an artificial and colourable devise for reducing its income offered for taxation through an arrangement of letter of credit and thus, the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of interest paid to the bank and also to its creditors are not allowable.
Kuthannur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs. ITO (Kerala High Court) The grievance of the appellants is that, though the orders passed by the Tribunal are in their favour, the Tribunal has not considered the effect of Circular No. 133/6 of 2007 dated 09.05.2007 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. In this circular, it […]
On the second issue in the petition, it was stated that in the absence of any finding about petitioners mala fide intention, connivance or wrongful association with the suppliers, no liability can be imposed on it on the principle of vicarious liability on account of fraudulent conduct of the suppliers, who have obtained registration on the basis of fictitious documents.
DCIT Vs Shri Ravjibhai Manibhai Patel (ITAT Ahmedabad) If an agriculture land is situated beyond 8 kms. from the local limit of any municipal or cantonment area, whose population is more than Rs.10 lakhs, then that would not fall within the ambit of definition ‘capital assets. This demarcation of the geographical situation of the land […]
The issue involved in the matter is whether the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on ‘Tour Operator Service’ used for pick-up and drop of employees of the Appellant to and fro Andheri and Kurla to their office premises is admissible as ‘input service’ under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Since both the nature & source of the share application received was fully explained by assessee thus, assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants and addition made by AO u/s 68 was based on conjectures and surmises which could not be justified.
Both assessment and the penalty order do not specify as to on which limb the AO intends to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
Commissioner ought not to have delegated his powers of provisional attachment of the immovable property under Section 83 to the Assistant Commissioner, therefore, the order of provisional attachment passed by the Assistant Commissioner was hereby quashed and set aside.
