DCIT Vs. Delta Constructions Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) Assessee contends that in order to invoke the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) it has to be shown that the payment made by the assessee is attracted by the provisions of section 194H of the Act i.e., there is liability to deduct tax at source on the bank guarantee […]
1. These appeals pertain to Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal was not justified in law to hold that the provisions of Section 194J is not applicable in respect of the payments made to M/s. Valuefirst Messaging Pvt. Ltd. for providing SMS services as […]
This is yet another case in the ever increasing number of cases filed before this Court challenging the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
On allowing appeals by the Revenue and / or rejection of Cross Objections filed by the assessee, the assessee moved an application seeking reference of following two questions of law for decision of this court
S. 68: Statements recorded u/s 132 (4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. A copy of the statement together with the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent has to provided to the assessee. If the statement is retracted and/or if cross-examination is not provided, the statement has to be discarded. The onus of ensuring the presence of the deponent cannot be shifted to the assessees. The onus is on the Revenue to ensure his presence
The word ‘production’ has a wider connotation in comparison to ‘manufacture’, and any activity which brings a commercially new product into existence constitutes production. The process of bottling of LPG renders it capable of being marketed as a domestic kitchen fuel and, thereby, makes it a viable commercial product.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Central, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as CESTAT) dated 18/08/2015 by which the learned CESTAT has dismissed the rectification application on the ground that the said application has been preferred beyond the date of six months from the date of passing the original order, appellant has preferred the present Tax Appeal.
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer by dis-allowing the deduction claimed under section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Keerthi Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The assessee has paid compounding fine to regularize the building plan. The payment of such compounding fine is penalty in the nature of an offence or which is prohibited by law. We have noticed that the decision on this count is divided among the various courts. The […]
Arnab Bose Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In the instant case, the employer has directly credited the salary, for services rendered outside India, into the NRE bank account of the seafarer in India. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid Circular is vague in as much as it does not specify as to whether the Circular covers […]
