Pr. CIT Vs M/s. E Smart Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court ) Supreme Court in this Case upheld the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Income Tax Department. High Court held that AO did not dispute the veracity of the documents produced. Furthermore, the two individuals who […]
Sudip Roy Choudhury Vs JCIT (TDS) (ITAT Kolkata) in the present case, the assessee deducted the TDS and deposited the same. Even there was no failure to submit return in Form 26Q. There was only failure for its timely submission – which by all counts is a technical breach. Further the delay had happened due […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. E Smart Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) It is relevant to state that AO in his remand report dated 10.10.2016 did not dispute the veracity of the additional evidences furnished by the assessee and further learned CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidences purely on technical ground which is wholly […]
In re Harmilap Media (P) Ltd. (GST AAR Uttarakhand) (a) applicability of GST rate on selling of space/ time for advertisement in print media in case of advertising companies; Selling of space for advertisement in print media by advertising company/ agency shall attract GST @ 5% [2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST] in case of advertising […]
In re Uttaranchal Filament (India) (GST AAR Uttarakhand) Whether the meaning of word ‘lapse’ in Notification No. 20/2018-Central Tax (Rate) would mean lapse for refund or lapse for utilization of input tax credit for payment of output tax liability. Held- Notification No. 20/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 26-7-2018 deals with refund of inverted duty structure only. […]
DIC Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) It was a case where on account of the disallowance made by the AO, the loss returned by the assessee stood converted into positive sum and made the appellant eligible to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. We thus find that as per the position […]
Cash payments in excess of Rs. 20,000 made on bank/public holidays towards purchase of construction materials in the activity of real estate development could not be subjected to disallowance under section 40A(3) in view of rule 6DD(J).
Where AO was of the view that a shareholder of assessee-company had no means to make the subscription of share capital, AO could have asked the source of investment from the shareholder and if the source was not properly explained, addition could have been made in the hands of shareholder as unexplained income but no addition could be made u/s 68 in the hands of assessee-company since it had discharged the initial onus cast upon it by virtue of provisions of section 68.
Loss on the transactions in castor oil and castor seeds entered between sister concerns could not be allowed to be set-off against business income and LTCG on sale of land as these were speculative transactions as assessee had not obtained the delivery of goods of alleged trading since the purchased item was sold on the same day in the same quantity and also that there was no transportation expenses claimed by assessee.
Rockwell Industries Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Anr. (Delhi High Court) HC held that it appears to us that in the present case the default assessment order has been generated only to defeat the refund claim of the petitioner, which, in any event, ought to have been paid well before the impugned orders […]
