Supreme Court (SC) dismisses Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Company Ltd. filed against decision of Gujarat High Court which upheld the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holding
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of sale/purchase of TDR, income by way of stallage and construction activity. During the assessment proceedings AO found that assessee had received advanced booking amount on account of the construction activity
The impugned communications dated 22 January 2014 and 23 January 2014 issued by Respondent no.3 Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax insisting that the Petitioner should pay the amounts adjudicated upon by order dated 27 December 2013 is contrary to the provisions
On perusal of the submitted details, it is noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on motor vehicles amounting of Rs.2,93,169/- in the year under consideration, but during the course of assessment proceeding the assessee has produced bills and proof of purchase
The issue is covered against the revenue by the Special Bench decision in Rajeev Sureshbahi Gajwani’s case (supra) and this decision binds this division bench. The theory of differentiation vs discrimination was relevant, relevant if it was, only for the India US tax treaty
These appeals by the Revenue relates to Assessment Year 2001-02. The respondent-assessee, as noticed above, namely, Federal-Mogul Goetze (India) Limited, had filed return of income on 31st October, 2001 declaring „nil‟income after setting for brought forward losses and depreciation.
Contention of the Assessee :- The action of the petitioner revenue in not only attaching the petitioner’s bank account but also withdrawing the amount of Rs.159.84 crores on 18 November 2013 when the stay application was already fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 22 November 2013
Assessee in his return submission dated 6.11.2009 had explained that the purchase of 2 JCB machines were made from Yantraman Automac Pvt.Ltd., Baroda and both these purchases were on hypothecation with Centurion Bank of Punjab.
n the present case, neither the genuineness of the payment nor the identity of the payee were in any case doubted. These were the conclusions on facts drawn by the Appellate Commissioner. The Tribunal also did not disturb such facts but relied solely on Rule 6DD (j) of the Rules to hold
The only defect which could be pointed out by the department is that the auditor’s report was unsigned and unverified. The said defect indisputably has been removed by filing the certificate of auditor and also the signed report. In our view, it was a matter of slip of pen for filing unsigned auditor’s report.
