Where revision application was filed by assessee, however, assessee had not been able to point out any error, which was apparent on the face of the order but the attempt appeared to be re-arguing the entire matter which is impermissible, accordingly, the review application was dismissed.
In the present case, we have noted that in case of Karta of HUF in his individual capacity under identical circumstances, application for condonation of delay based on identical grounds came to be accepted by the Revenue. In same set of facts and same situation, there cannot be a differential treatment. Merely because one application was decided by the Commissioner and another by the Chief Commissioner cannot be a point of distinction.
In this Income-tax Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellant Income Tax Department, has challenged the order dated 24.05.2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in ITA No.336/Jodh/2016.
Applicant along with their staff were extremely pre-occupied with the GST work of transition and registration of the dealers. Since, it was a new enactment and there were enormous complexities and unclearity, apart from the technological problems, continuously issued circulars and instructions etc., the said tax consultant could not file adjournment application
Whether marine paints supplied by the applicant, would be considered to be a part of ship and accordingly be then classified under SI No. 252 of Schedule I of Notification No. 1/2017 of Central Tax (Rates) dated June, 28, 2017?
Appellant not eligible to avail input tax credit against unutilised cenvat credit such as Education cess, Secondary & Higher secondary Education cess & Krishi Kalyan cess lying in his books of Accounts.
The Revenue has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal thereby partly allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue against the judgment and order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
The remuneration to the members of the HUF were paid for the services rendered in the business which is allowable U/s. 37(1) and invoking the provisions of Section 184 and Section 40(b) does not arise on the facts of the case at all.
This is an appeal by Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Tirupati, dated 31-03-2017, treating the deposits made in the bank account as business turnover, whereas AO was of the opinion that these are unexplained income U/s. 68 of the Act.
M/s. Sri Sai Datta Mutual Aided Co-operative Credit Society Vs Asst. (ITAT Hyderabad) The AO and CIT(A) have considered the ordinary members and nominal members are different class of members. AO accepts that ordinary members are having mutuality but he denies the same with reference to nominal members. The principle of mutuality cannot be denied […]
