High Court held that (I) We hold that e-recharge is not covered by the Item No. 133 of the Government Notification dated 28th March 2013 and that in any event, LBT cannot be levied on erecharge; (II) We reject the contention of the petitioner that the LBT is not payable on the SIM cards and […]
Where material was found in course of search at third party assessee that assessee had claimed bogus expenditure of 1 crore, towards which assessee had surrendered Rs. 50 lakhs and for balance 50 lakhs, it failed to provide any evidence, then it was made clear that onus of showing that balance expenditure was justified, lay upon assessee. Since assessee failed to discharge onus, AO was justified in bringing to tax the said expenditure.
The facts giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 9178 of 2012 and 9180 of 2012 needs to be briefly noted. Several writ petitions were filed before the Calcutta High Court questioning the vires of Section 115-O of the 1961 Act. The petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that the petitioner is a Tea Company which cultivate tea in gardens and processes it in its own factory/plants for marketing the same.
As common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions and as such in respect of the same assessee, but with respect to different assessment years, all these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
High Court held that Tribunal’s order is confusing. In the impugned order, the Tribunal does not indicate what it means by AOP. It does not indicate as to what it means by TAS for both sides tell us that it is identical to TDS, namely, Tax Deducted at Source. We are unhappy with the abbreviations […]
Deferral of depreciation allowance does not result into any concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held while setting aside the penalty imposed on eminent lawyer Harish Salve for alleged concealment of income as it said his tax payments running into crores show his intention to be tax compliant.
In the present case also the income returned by the assessee under section 153A of the Act has been accepted by the assessing officer and once the assessing officer accepts the revised return filed under section 153A of the Act, the original return under section 139 of the Act abates and becomes non-est. Therefore, in […]
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal [NCLAT] Judgment dated Sept. 20, 2017 wherein it has been held that a Power of Attorney [POA] Holder is not authorised to file proceedings under IBC and only an ‘Authorised Representative’ by the Board of Directors can file the same.
This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961) has arisen from judgment and order dated 12.04.2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench A, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in ITA No. 492/LKW/2016.
Though the name of the respondent assessee is distinct in each of these Appeals, it is agreed that the Revenue is proposing similar questions in all of them. These Appeals of the Revenue arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal and taking a view that the grounds raised are covered, in majority of the cases, by the earlier order of the Tribunal.
