The appellant has a Custom Broker Licence. The Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur by issue of the impugned order, rejected the application dated 26.02.2015 filed for renewal of their Customs Broker Licence.
ITAT Mumbai in case of ACIT v/s M/s WTI Advanced technology held that tax is to deducted u/s 194C for outsourcing of any service which do not require skilled staff.
Division Bench of this Court has already found that the goods detained under a detention notice issued in terms of the CGST/SGST Act cannot be released unless a security equal to the amount demanded is insisted from the assessee
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently ruled that technical services would not include services provided by the machines for the purpose of Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ).
Upon conjoint reading of Trust Deed and SEBI directions as above, we conclude that the said expenditure was incurred by the assessee to safeguard / protect its business interest and therefore, allowable to the assessee in terms of Section 37.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in disallowing the claim o f expenditure of Rs. 1,71,67,000/- by applying section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please may be granted by deleting the entire addition Rs. 1,71,67,000/- imposed under section 40A(3)
Future Corporate Resources Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee argued that it had earned meager dividend income of Rs. 24,138 as against which, the assessing officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 3,36,28,000 which is more than the exempt income. The assessee further argued that dis-allowance under section 14A cannot exceed amount of exempt […]
Where assessee received capital from the partner in cash, it did not tentamount to loan or deposit and therefore, penalty under section 271D was not to be levied for violation of section 269SS.
Non service of noticed is not a ground to raise the addition of bogus purchase to the income of the assessee in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. M/s. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P. Ltd. 2016 taxman.com 171 (Bombay High Court).
The learned Single Judge ordered release of the vehicle and goods by executing a simple bond. The State challenges the order, since it is passed overlooking Rule 140 of the SGST Rules.
