Kabeer Khan Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Since the legal heirs of the diseased assessee in the instant case have not taken any steps to file the revised Form No.36, duly filled up giving the revised name of the party duly verified in the manner as prescribed in the rules, therefore, the present appeal cannot be […]
No service tax on Mandap Keeper Service in respect of corporate booking of rooms where conference hall is provided as a complementary service.
Ghatkesar Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) ITAT held that assessee being a primary agricultural co-operative society invested the own surplus funds with the Union Bank of India and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. It could be seen from the name of […]
Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error while holding that Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be invoked to sanction the refund of unutilized Cenvat credit lying with the appellant much prior to April, 2017 that too in cash as per Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017.
Provision of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act does not make any distinction in regard to source of the investment because this Section envisages deduction in respect of any income derived by co-operative society from any investment with a co-operative society.
Nirmal Kumar Minda Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The ground No.2 relates to the addition of Rs.37.50 lacs u/s. 69B of the Act in respect of 6 paintings found at the residence of the assessee. The underlying facts in the impugned issue are that 6 paintings were found at the time of search which were got […]
An application has been filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi for permission to utilize Rs.500 crores of Environment Compensation Charge (ECC) Fund towards the payment of Delhi -Meerut RRTS project.
CIT(A) was not right in levying interest under Section 234A of the Act when the return was filed under Section 148 itself and therefore, the interest should be charged from the date of notice under Section 148 of the Act itself and not from the date of return filed under Section 139 or it is due date under Section 139.
DCIT Vs Shri Sanjay Singhal (ITAT Delhi) The undisputed fact is that the substantive as well as protective additions have been made u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. A bare perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that no money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article was found during search conducted on 07.04.2017 which is […]
Service recipient is claiming that, they have to charge @5% by considering the reimbursement of expenses as Part of Canteen Service and they are not ready to accept it as separate service.
