15% discount extended by the broadcasters cannot be included for the purpose of charging service tax under the category of advertising agency from the clients.
M/s. Modern Traders Vs. State Of U P And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court) The High Court Held that As e-way bill was produced on the same day of the interception of goods along with documents indicating payment of IGST but before seizure order is passed, no justification for passing orders of seizure of goods/vehicle […]
Shri Ghanshyam Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) In present case, the ld. Additional CIT granted the approval by observing merely that he was satisfied. Sections 147 and 148 of the IT Act, it is trite, are charter to the Revenue to reopen completed assessments. Section 151 of the Act provides a safe-guard that the sword of […]
Narmada Drinks Pvt. Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Delhi) It is well known that the bottlers receive concentrate from the brand owners such as M/s Coca Cola, manufacture aerated products there from and sell the same. Para 6.2 of the relevant show cause notice alleges that the amounts have been received from the brand […]
Principal CIT Vs Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (Gujarat High Court) It is well settled that even in case where the original assessment is made without scrutiny, the requirement of the Assessing Officer forming the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, would apply. Reference in this respect can be made of the judgment in […]
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata, (hereinafter the Ld. CIT(A)), dt. 22/09/2017, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), relating to Assessment Year 2012-13
The learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the order of the assessing officer holding that gift made by the assessee towards relinquishing 50% interest in the flat No. 52 at Ajanta Apartment, Colaba, Mumbai is a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act.
ITO Vs Upkar Retail (P.) Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) We find guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] CTR (SC) 177 : [1972] 88 ITR 192 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down a principle that “if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are […]
As assessee received salary in cash, his claim that investments were made from such salary could not be brushed aside and keeping in view the overall facts and capacity of the assessee, addition under section 69 was deleted.
It is not disputed that section 40(a)(ia), Second proviso is for the benefit of the assessee and when a provision has been made in fiscal statute for benefit of assessee, in the absence of any express provision or a provision which by necessary implication gives a different impression, such provision which is beneficial to the assessee must be read and given effect to retroactively.
