Vidyadayani Shiksha Samiti Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Delhi) Coming to the powers of the Commissioner as to whether while granting registration under section 12A he is required to examine the books of account etc. or he is only to satisfy himself regarding the objects of the trust and genuineness of the activities of the trust, […]
Principal CIT Vs Manoj Hora (Delhi High Court) The text of section 132(4), clarifies that the presumption arises in the case of the searched party. In case the statements by the party whose premises are searched, or to be attributed to a third party – as in the case of the assessee, there has to […]
The grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1295/Mum/2012 for AY 2000-01 & ITA No. 1296/Mum/2012 for AY 2001-02 are common. In both these appeals the assessee has taken as many as eight grounds of appeal
If the assessee has subscribed to the preferential warrants as an investor, then the share application money assumes the character of capital expenditure and the loss incurred by the assessee on forfeiture of the initial payment already made by the assessee is capital in nature. But if the assessee is trading in shares and in the course of such business, if it has incurred loss, it would be revenue expenditure.
Whether the whole (Sheep/Goat) animal carcass in its natural shape in frozen state in different weight and size packed in LDPE bags without mentioning the weight and one or two such LDPE bags further packed in HDPE bags being supplied to Army by applicant against tender shall qualify as product put up in unit container?
Salora International Ltd. Vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) A plain and textual reading of Section 275(1A) clarifies that the expiry of six months prescribed is to be reckoned from the date of completion of proceedings or from the end of the month in which the order of the CIT(A) or as the case may be […]
Regarding the allowability of deduction under clause (iii) of section 57, it has to be established by the assessee that expenditure has been exclusively laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income taxable under the head ‘income from other sources
Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST, Mumbai Central (CESTAT Mumbai) In this case demand was raised from the input service distributor who has distributed the service credit to their respective factory on the ground that the input service viz. air travel agent service, is not admissible as the service related to business activity […]
The jewellery found in possession of the Assessee and his family is within the normal limits of the jewellery which as per the Board’s Circular not to be seized during the search proceeding of the Income Tax Act. Moreover, in the case of Haroon Mohd. Unni Mumbai vs Department of Income Tax, the Assessing Officer conducting the search suo-moto allowed 250 gms. each to the married ladies of the family as their `Streedhan’.
Penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed only on the natural individual person and not on the artificial person or company because the goods is handled by natural living person and not by an artificial entity.
