ITAT opined that the assessee derived advantage by deferring its income to the extent of excess warranty provision to subsequent years. Therefore, such excess provision cannot be allowed as a deduction as it cannot be said to be reliable.
The issue under consideration is whether interest u/s 201(1A) will be levied on assessee even if NRI seller had already paid taxes as per his return?
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Revisional Commissioner is expected show that the view taken by the AO is wholly unsustainable in law before embarking upon exercise of revisionary powers. The revisional powers cannot be exercised for directing a fuller inquiry to merely find out if the earlier view taken is erroneous particularly when a […]
Discover the verdict of the Divisional Forest Officer (GST AAAR Uttarakhand) regarding the exigibility of Abhivahan Shulk to GST. Explore the detailed analysis and conclusions of the AAAR Uttarakhand in this case.
CIT Vs Abad Exim (P) Ltd. (Kerala High Court) The question remaining is with respect to the deduction, insofar as the contribution made to the Fishermen’s Welfare Fund. The Fund itself was declared unconstitutional by a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in AIR 2002 SC 973 [Koluthara Exports Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others. […]
Addition under section 68 on account of bogus share capital and exorbitant premium was not justified as where the funds had been received through banking channel and there was no dispute about the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the investors.
In the appeal of M/s. Aditya Birla Retail Ltd. (GST AAAR Maharashtra), the appellate authority clarifies the interpretation of ‘brand name’ regarding packaging and GST exemptions. Also, read about the GST AAR ruling on Aditya Birla’s cereal packs.
In re Maheshwari Stone Supplying Co. (GST AAAR Telangana) Issue- Polished / Processed limestone slabs are correctly classifiable under heading 6802 of the GST Tariff? appellant has not made out a case against the decision in impugned Advance Ruling in so far as it has been ruled that ‘Polished / Processed Limestone slabs are. correctly […]
When all requisite details were already on record with supporting evidences and same were duly examined by AO, the order of AO was not erroneous and prejudice to interest of Revenue.
Shri A K Prasad Vs Shri S. K. Bansal (CESTAT Delhi) The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India. Thus, it has been clearly laid down […]
