CESTAT Chennai held that non-payment of service tax under GTA by assessee (Co-operative Society) was due to bonafide belief and there was no deliberate intention for not paying tax. Accordingly, extended period of limitation not invocable.
ITAT held that if there is any incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, then adjustment is permissible. Here in this case, once the claim of deduction as per the law in not allowable, same can be disallowed in the intimation u/s 143(1).
Manish Lakhotia Vs Income Tax Officer (Calcutta High Court) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7th February, 2023 passed by the Assessing Officer directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the tax demand and then file stay petition for granting stay on tax demand. The petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application […]
HC held that issuance of a notice under Section 148 in absence of any new tangible material was nothing but an attempt to review earlier order of assessment passed by A.O.
No penalty is envisaged under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction and for belated remittance /payment/deposit of the TDS.
GK Steel & Wire Products Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The main contention of the assessee is that the value of the opening stock of the assessee has gone down resulting in gross loss of Rs.25,32,724/-. The ld. Counsel submits that this is because due to rust stock and the sales realization was lower than the […]
Assessee is not a recipient but payer of loan. Hence, as per provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, assessee was not liable to tax
Tribunal Decision determining ALP can be challenged on grounds of perversity & non observance of transfer pricing rules in individual cases
SSB Petro Products & Ors Vs Assistant Commissioner (Calcutta High Court) Hon’ble Division Bench of Calcutta High Court on 21.04.2023 passed the order and restored the appeal considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Respondent no.1 issued notice in DRC-01A through email and the petitioner submitted reply through email and thereafter 1st Respondent […]
Assessees could not claim cost of improvement and indexation cost as assessee had to furnish some evidence and in the absence of any evidence or information, the information contained in the registered sale deed was required to be accepted.
