Arun Kumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The ld AO has not brought any evidence on record to show that these agencies have alleged any stock manipulation against the assessee and or the brokers and or the Company. In absence of any evidences it cannot be said that merely because the stock price moved sharply, the […]
Kalanithi Maran Vs. UOI (Madras High Court) In the absence of any material, 2nd respondent should not have come to conclusion that assessee was Principal Officer. Unless the 2nd respondent makes out a prima facie case against petitioner of his liability and obligation as Principal Officer in day-to-day affairs of the company as Chairman-cum-Managing Director […]
Sitaram Ramchanddas Patel Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) When the assessee failed to prove the capacity of the concerned persons who alleged to have given the unsecured loan and/or gift, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in confirming the additions made by the Assessing officer and confirmed by the […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s Nawany Construction Co. Pvt Ltd (Bombay High Court) Section 260A Low Tax Effect Circular– Department has made an attempt to get over the binding Circulars and in any case we shall not allow the Revenue to get over them in this manner. The Circulars continue to bind the Revenue and if they contain any conditions, whether […]
In re Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (T & R), Howrah CGST & CX Commissionerate (GST AAAR West Bengal) It is clarified that Polypropylene Woven and Non-Woven Bags and PP Woven and Non-Woven Bags laminated with BOPP would be classified as plastic bags under HS code 3923 and would attract 18% GST.” From the above, […]
Pr. CIT Vs. Vijay Infrastructure Ltd. (Allahabad High Court) Since the time limit for filing the revised return had not expired during the relevant year, therefore, claim for deduction under section 80-IA if not made earlier could have been made in the revised return. Once it could have been claimed in the revised return under […]
It is also directed that if the petitioner complies with Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the goods detained shall be released to him forthwith.
These cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the revenue are directed against the order of CIT(A)-7, Mumbai dated 27-12-2011 and it pertains to AY 2006-07. Since both the appeals pertains to same assessee, for the sake of convenience, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
CIT (TDS) Vs M/s Mumbai Metropolitan Regional (Bombay High Court) Section 194LA of the I.T.Act, 1961 inter alia deals with payment of compensation on acquisition of certain immovable property. Section 194LA of the I.T.Act, 1961 was brought into force with effect from 1st October, 2004. Section 194L of the I.T.Act, 1961 deals with payment of […]
DCIT Vs Esteem Textiles P. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Evidently, AO on the basis of a letter written by the company, which was returned by the assessee by putting its signature and seal in confirmation of the accounts, had framed the assessment under section 153C. However, the said document could not be said to belong to […]
