Follow Us:

Judiciary

Loss due to reduction in Face Value of share capital is Capital Loss

November 29, 2018 9696 Views 0 comment Print

Section 2(47) is containing an inclusive definition and inter alia, it provides that relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right there in amounts to a transfer of a capital asset.

Section 40A(3) additions not justified when demand draft amount credited to bank account although not crossed

November 29, 2018 2841 Views 2 comments Print

M. K. Agrotech Private Ltd. Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court) The main purpose of crossing a demand draft is to ensure that the payment is cleared by means of an account, i.e., the payment is deposited in the Bank Account i.e the person in whose favour the demand draft has been drawn. It ensures the […]

Unfilled Part B of e-way bill cannot be treated as a minor omission: Goods can be released only on Compliance

November 29, 2018 3006 Views 0 comment Print

Daily Express Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) Section 129 is a self-contained code. It lays down the entire mechanism for provisional release of the goods.  Section 129 begins with a non-obstante clause. It stands protected from every other provision. Earlier this Court, on more than one occasion, has held that unfilled Part […]

Turnkey EPC Project for Solar Plant comes under Works Contract,18% GST payable

November 29, 2018 6267 Views 0 comment Print

In re RFE Solar Private Limited (GST AAAR Rajasthan) AAAR held that Turnkey EPC contract is a ‘composite supply’ under section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017.The said composite supply falls within the definition of Works contract under section 2(119) of the CGST Act, 2017 (SAC9954) and attracts 18% rate of tax (either 9% each […]

Deduction U/s. 80P to cooperative society on Interest earned on FDs and saving bank deposit

November 28, 2018 11601 Views 0 comment Print

Jawala Cooperative Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Funds kept in bank could be said to be ready for utilization by the assessee, cooperative society, in its business of providing credit facilities to its members, and therefore, the income from such monies, kept in bank, were attributable to the business of […]

Notice u/s 143(2) issued by AO before return filing has no meaning

November 28, 2018 2964 Views 0 comment Print

Shri Sudhir Menon Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee filed return of income under section 148 of the Act vide letter dated 23.05.2013 stating that the original return of income can be treated as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. It means that the assessee has filed return of […]

ITAT order cannot be termed erroneous for negligence of Dept

November 28, 2018 855 Views 0 comment Print

ITO Vs M/s. Iraisaa Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) If we examine the facts of the present case it can be seen that in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had received certain unsecured loan and share capital investment which were examined by the Assessing Officer during the assessment […]

Reassessment u/s 147 void in absence of fresh tangible material with AO

November 28, 2018 4062 Views 0 comment Print

ACIT Vs M/s Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Under the new provisions of section 147, an assessment can be reopened if the Assessing Officer has ‘reason to believe’ that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; but if he wants to do so after a period of four years or merely on […]

Notice U/s. 148 valid despite no fresh material if Return was processed U/s. 143(1)

November 28, 2018 1815 Views 0 comment Print

Ajay Narayan Bhoir Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In case of return of income processed under section 143(1), the only condition to be satisfied for reopening is that taxable income has escaped assessment and the assessee’s plea that no fresh material was there before the AO warranting re-opening, was not relevant. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT […]

No Penalty for withdrawal of higher depreciation claim during assessment

November 28, 2018 1674 Views 0 comment Print

Where assessee had claimed depreciation on building at revalued figures and later on withdrawn the excess depreciation during the course of assessment proceedings to buy peace, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was invalid because mere making of wrong claim would not automatically lead to an inference of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031