Pr. CIT Vs Sterlite Opportunities and Ventures Ltd. (Bombay High Court) revised return filed under Section 139(5) of the Act, was valid return of income filed by the Respondent on its own and not on the basis of any investigation/ discovery done by the department of inaccurate particulars in the original return of income. Thus, […]
ITO Vs M/s. Mundela Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (ITAT Cochin) With regard to non granting of deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act, treating the unexplained credits as ‘income from other sources’, this issue was considered by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kerala Sponge Iron Ltd., 79 taxmann.com/379 ITR 330 wherein ‘the income […]
DLF Cyber City Developers Limited Vs CST (CESTAT Chandigarh) The sole issue is to be decided by us is that the Offshore Upfront Fee paid by the respondent is an interest or a fee. We find that if it is an interest then service tax is not payable by the appellant in terms of the […]
M/s. Dalmia Power Limited Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) a) The scheme of arrangement and amalgamation approved by the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 391 of the Companies Act gives statutory force to enable the respective petitioners to file the revised returns of income beyond the prescribed period and Section 139(5) of the Income […]
As there was no whisper about escapement of income, i.e., loss created by misusing client’s code modification, in the reasons for reopening conveyed to the assessee, therefore, no addition in respect of this could be made without making any addition in respect of the item shown to have escaped assessment in the reasons recorded.
CIT Vs Union Bank of India (Bombay High Court) To align the Income Tax Act with the Companies Act, 1956 it was decided to amend Section 115JB to provide that the companies which are not required under Section 211 of the Companies Act, to prepare profit and loss account in accordance with Schedule VI of […]
In case there was only a survey operation under section 131 and no proceedings were pending at that point of time in assessee’s case, exercising power of search under section 132 by income tax authorities without any satisfaction recorded either of non-cooperation of assessee or a suspicion that income had been concealed by assessee warranting resort to the process of search and seizure made the the process of search and seizure conducted as invalid and to be quashed .
In re Rossi Gear motors India Private Limited (GST AAR Tamil Nadu) Q1. Whether the Geared Motor is to be classified under 8501 or under 8483 for the purpose of payment of GST? A1. The ‘Gear Motors’ supplied by the applicant are to be classified under CTH 8501. Q2. Whether the Geared Motor can be […]
Applicability of E-way bill procedure and details to be filled in GSTR-1 are not answered as the same are not in the purview of Advance Ruling as per Section 97 of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017.
K. Chandrasekaran Vs TRO (Madras High Court) The present impugned order is put to challenge mainly on three grounds. The first ground raised is that the petitioner was not put on notice before passing the impugned order. When such contention is specifically raised by the petitioner, it is the duty of the respondent to place […]
