In absence of fresh material indicating escaped income, the AO cannot assume jurisdiction to reopen already concluded assessment. It was further held that since there was no whisper in reasons recorded, of any tangible material which came to possession of AO subsequent to issue of intimation, therefore, it was an arbitrary exercise of power conferred u/s 147.
In a major relief to the Ernst & Young Pvt Ltd (EY), the Kolkata bench of the ITAT confirmed the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer allowing deduction under sections 10A and 10AA of the Income Tax Act to the Company without set off of loss of taxable unit.
Full value of consideration mentioned in section 48 of the Act may be replaced by the value assessed or adopted by the stamp value authorities or fair market value only if section 50C of the Act applies in this case and which depends on the fact whether the sale transaction was registered by the stamp […]
Merely relying upon the information from the Sales Tax Department or the fact that parties were not produced the Assessing Officer could not have treated the purchases as bogus and made addition.
There is nothing brought on record to show that the activities of the assessee are driven by profit motive. In these circumstances we are of the view that the conditions for grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act are duly satisfied as the activities of the assessee are genuine and its objects are also charitable.
The division bench of Delhi High Court, in UOI v. Padmini Polymers Ltd & Anr, held that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has no jurisdiction to file Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Settlement Commission.
CIT Vs M/s. Gillette India Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court) What is clearly discernable from the penalty order is that reference was not made to any particular or specific date by which assessee was required to submit the documents; or whether the same were furnished within 30 days or within the extended period of 30 days […]
These appeals are filed by the assessee against an order dated 30-3-2016 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-2, Chennai, in I.T.A. No. 31/CIT(A)-2/2013-14 for the assessment year 2008-09 and the order dated 30-3-2016 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-2, Chennai, in I.T.A. No. 174/CIT(A)-2/2013-14 for the assessment year 2009-10.
Rejection of refund claim filed under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dt. 6-10-2007, as amended is the subject matter of present dispute. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 6-8-2010 has denied the refund benefit on the ground that though, to and fro freight charges have been claimed by service provider, no separate freight has been mentioned on the bills from Pithampur to port of export; that the service charges, namely
We are extremely unhappy with the delay of 3381 days in refiling the special leave petition but make no other comment. The concerned authorities need to wake up.
