Jute Cess will be payable only when the goods are removed from the factory and hence the demands made in all three Orders are not sustainable.
State Bank of India Vs PCIT-2 (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT note that the AO during the assessment proceedings had requested the assessee to furnish explanation in respect of such items of expenses and receipt appearing in the trading accounts and profit and loss accounts (either by way of excess or reduction) in comparison to last year. […]
No ample opportunity was given to the legal heirs of the deceased assessee. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set aside and the matter should be remitted back to the original authority for affording due opportunity to the legal heirs of the original assessee to put forth their case.
Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Vs Jindal Steel and Power Ltd (Orissa High Court) It appears that the opposite party exported final products on payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 69,98,64,638/- during the period 01.01.2017 to 03.2017, and claimed rebate, vide application dated 14.08.2017, under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, […]
Petitioner admittedly made an application seeking for exit from EOU/STPI scheme and it was its specific case that it had not imported any capital goods or procured any capital goods in respect of project.
Sahil Infra Creative Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) The position which unfolds in this case is that the petitioner assesse had filed its objections to the notice for reassessment under section 148 unamended issued to him, however, the Assessing Officer never attended to the objections dated 12.10.2022 and left it undecided. Thereafter, the […]
Chennai Port Authority Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner’s request for personal hearing through video conferencing was not considered and the same was mechanically rejected and the impugned orders were passed, which is clear violation of principles of natural justice. In similar circumstances, this […]
ITAT Ahmedabad held that unsecured loan taken at higher rate for commercial expediency is admissible under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisional power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act correctly invoked as AO failed to examine the issue of purchase of land in the light of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessment order passed u/s 143(3) beyond time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Income Tax Act is time barred and bad in law.
