Galgotia Publication (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The present assessee before us is a company and is an entity recognised by law, as a legal person, that exist in eyes of law independently with rights and liabilities. Thus no element of personal expenses by the Directors/Office bearers can be attributed, without, there being sufficient […]
It is not disputed that that the withdrawal of the Circulars No. 23 and 786 has been made on 22-10-2009 vide CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2009 and mere withdrawal of the circular does not negate the principles of income deemed to accrue or arise in India or outside India.
CIT Vs M/S. JRD Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) The peak credit worked out by the Assessee was on the basis that the principle of peak credit would apply, notwithstanding the failure of the Assessee to explain each of the sources of the deposits and the corresponding destination of the payment without squaring […]
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs M/s Khush Bhakht Electronic Engineers Pvt.Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of schedule entries C-II-124 and C-II-126, appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding the impugned product […]
Show cause notice was issued without scrutiny of the taxable value on which service tax was due from the appellant. He submitted that had Revenue scrutinized the entire transaction that was reflected in balance sheet, Revenue would have come to know that the freight charges reflected in balance sheet included various elements such as freight paid for inward transports of goods, freight paid on outward transport of goods.
Where claim of deduction had came up with a complete disclosure of all the facts by way of a note to the Computation of Income (COI) filed with assessee’s Return of Income (ROI) for the year under consideration, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was called for :Novartis India case
Benefit u/s 54 can be availed even if plot was purchased prior to sale of property provided construction of the house property is completed within the time frame provided in Section 54.
As the complete details to be filled up in Part-B of the E-way Bill were supplied on 25.05.2018, the goods were not liable for seizure on 26.05.2018.
Mathumitha Ramesh Vs The Chief Health Officer (Madras High Court) In the present case, the hospital in which the petitioner had given birth to a child had certified that the petitioner herein had delivered an alive girl on 23.04.2017 at 10.47 a.m. at Cethar Hospital, Trichy. The petitioner herein had also filed an affidavit before the authorities that the child was born from her womb. In the affidavit filed before this Court, the petitioner had clearly stated that she got pregnant through “intrauterine insemination” through which, she delivered […]
Assessee could not be held liable for levy of late filing charges under section 234E for the period prior to June, 2015 in the absence of amendment to section 200A, which was brought on Statute from 1-6-2015.
