This Court has taken suo motu cognizance of incident of police firing as well as lathicharge by the police upon Advocates at Tis Hazari Courts Complex, New Delhi.
CESTAT Chennai has allowed refund of excess amount paid by mistake as pre-deposit by the assessee. It observed that when the legislature made it clear what is to be collected as pre-deposit, in the absence of any finding about non-satisfaction of conditions as to pre-deposit, the department cannot retain such excess amount remitted by mistake.
If one contrasts section 264 of the Act with noticed that unlike section 246A of the Act which specifies sections of the Act from which an appeal would lie, section 264 of the Act provides for revision from `any order’ under the Act. This is another indication that the Commissioner of Income Tax has very wide powers to correct any order passed by an officer subordinate to him.
AO required assessee-company to prove genuineness of share capital along with premium received by it. Assessee furnished various evidences in that regard. However, AO made addition under section 68 on the ground that in response to summons under section 131 shareholder companies had not appeared for personal deposition.
The entire disallowance in this case is based on third party information gathered by the Investigation Wing of the Department, which have not been independently subjected to further verification by the AO who has not provided the copy of such statements to the appellant, thus denying opportunity of cross examination to the appellant, who has prima facie discharged the initial burden of substantiating the purchases through various documentation including purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and the fact of payment through cheques, & VAT Registration of the sellers & their Income Tax Return.
Kerala High Court ruling on E-way Bill, goods detention. AMM Aquapure Systems Vs Asstt. STO case details. Read the full judgment.
ITO Vs Max Ventures Investment Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) An addition can be made u/s 69B of the Act where during any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, which exceeds the amount recorded on this count in the […]
‘Casino vessels’ could not be classified as ‘pleasure boats’ as the vessel was a supply vessel used for transport of persons and goods, the correct classification would be heading no. 8901 90 00 which covers’ Other vessels for transport of the goods and other vessels for transport of both persons and goods’ and not under heading No. 8903 9990. More so, the goods falling under heading no. 8901 were exempted under Not. 21/2002 read with Notification No. 20/2006.
ITO Vs M/s Citymaker Builder Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) As two of the share applicant companies as per the information received by the A.O from the office of the DGIT(Inv), Mumbai, were the companies controlled an infamous accommodation entry provider, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the lower authorities to have carried out […]
The Assessing Officer thus concluded that there was no nexus between the higher education expense of Ms. Esha Arya and the business of the assessee and accordingly disallowed the entire sum holding that it was not an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.
