AO had duly adjudicated the same on merits in the assessment order itself and hence there is no question of said claim of assessee getting rejected for not claiming the same by way of a valid return.
S. K. Mineral Handling Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata) In this case contract is essentially for the transportation of goods which incidentally involving loading of tipper/unloading of tipper at Railway Track head/Railway Siding which cannot be taxed under the category of Cargo Handling Service simply because rates for […]
When resulting company had not received notice of reopening of assessment of amalgamating company, then, order of assessment that came to be passed pursuant to the notice of reopening of assessment, was not against the resulting company, thus, notice of recovery was set aside and attachment of the resulting company’s bank accounts was lifted.
Though the co-operative banks pursuant to the insertion of subsection (4) to Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P of the Act, but as a co-operative bank continues to be a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or under any other law for the time being in force in any State for the registration of co-operative societies, therefore, the interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments held with a co-operative bank would be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act.
When the excess stocks were found during the Survey, there was no question of allowing the assessee to record any additional purchases because such purchases had already been recorded in the books of account of the assessee. Therefore, the excess stock, per se, had to be naturally brought to tax as ‘undisclosed income’ by itself and there was no question of any corresponding deduction from that in such cases. Hence, revenue was justified in bringing to tax the undisclosed Income under section 69C.
As margin between the value as given by the assessee and the Departmental Valuer was less than 10 percent and the difference is liable to be ignored and the addition made by the lower authorities on this count cannot be sustained
Shri Parmod Kumar Sahai Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) No reopening permissible on basis of invalid enquiry made under section 133 without approval of competent authority when no proceedings were pending We have perused second paragraph of the assessment order which refers to the inquiry made by the Assessing Officer before issue of notice u/s 148 […]
Facts of the Case Reliance Jio Infocom Limited (‘Reliance Jio’) is a Public Limited Company registered under Companies Act 2013. It is an Indian Telecommunication Company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Reliance Industries, headquartered in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. It operates a national LTE network with coverage across all 22 telecom circles. Reliance Jio filed a […]
Assessee was entitled to claim refund of service tax on composite contract of immovable property including value of land as merely because assessee made the payment, it would not partake the character of service tax and the department could not retain the amount paid by assessee which was in fact not payable by them.
CBI Vs. Devendra Chaturvedi (Special Court for CBI at Greater Bombay) In nutshell, it is the allegation against accused that they conspired to cheat the Income Tax Department and in collusion with each other during the relevant period accused No.1 prepared income tax returns with the assistance of accused No.2 in the name of accused […]
