It is one of the most time-honoured and cardinal rule of administration of justice that a party (adversary) should be heard by any Court or Tribunal in the manner he has approached the Court/Tribunal and that he should never be preferred or selected over other litigants/adversaries from the long pending queue unless and until, we repeat, unless and until there are strong compelling and justifiable reasons for bestowing a preferential treatment to a party for hearing him on priority and out of turn basis.
One should not consider and reject an explanation as concocted and contrived by applying prudent man’s behaviour test. Principle of preponderance of probability as a test is to be applied and is sufficient to discharge onus.
The AO’s reason for re-opening is that along with the certificate in Form 56F, which was the certificate of the CA, the working sheet of deduction was not enclosed. That was not a requirement of law. What Form 56F has to be accompanied with is specified under the Income Tax Rules itself. The mere fact that the working sheet may not have been enclosed does not amount to a failure by the Assessee to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts. Consequently, the Court is satisfied that the second reason for re-opening is also unsustainable in law.
DCIT Vs M/s DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chandigarh) In this case since there was no reason at all for reopening the case on the issue of treatment of royalty expenses ,since the same had already been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT, before the recording of reasons for reopening the present case. […]
In re Nipro India Corporation Private Limited (GST AAR Maharashtra) Present application for advance ruling is being filed to determine the eligibility of ITC in relation to costs proposed to be incurred for ‘Mechanical Works’ and ‘Electrical Works’ under the Extension Project. ‘Mechanical Works’ entails activities in the nature of Plumbing Works, Fire Protection Work, […]
In Re IAC Electricals Pvt Ltd (GST AAR West Bengal) Services of transportation, in-transit insurance and loading/unloading, being ancillary to the principal supply of goods, shall be treated to taxation under Section 8 (a) of the GST Act, and the consideration receivable on that account be taxed accordingly. This Ruling is valid subject to the provisions […]
In re Temple Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Daman, Diu & DNH) Issue- Classification of Printed Leaflet manufactured by them in their factory out of their own raw material-paper/ink and with the contents supplied by the purchaser. Clarification sought as to whether the same is to be considered as supply of goods or supply of […]
This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 21st January, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 21st January, 2015 is in respect of Assessment Year 2010-11.
The mere circumstance that the depreciation rate is spelt out in the Schedule to the Income-tax Act in our opinion is not conclusive as to the nature of the expenditure and whether it resulted an enduring advantage to a particular assesseeIt is nobody’s case that assessee is dealing with computer softwares or is in the business of any related services.
A bare reading of cl. (baa) (1) indicates that receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges etc., formed part of gross total income being business profits. But, for the purposes of working out the formula and in order to avoid distortion of arriving export profits cl. (baa) stood inserted to say that although incentive profits and ‘independent incomes’ constituted part of gross total income, they had to be excluded from gross total income because such receipts had no nexus with the export turnover.
