“If petitioner is able to obtain any amount of money towards tax deducted from his income at source for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012- 13 from his employer, the same shall be deposited by him with the revenue.”
The Explanation (iii) to Section 13, forbids the Assessing Authority as well as the assessee from raising any dispute regarding the allowability of the ITC in cases where exempted goods are being produced as a by-product or waste product during the process of manufacture
After examining the expenses payable and the detailed order of the CIT,the ITAT held that the CIT has correctly examined the invoices, period and purpose for the expenses which have not been paid for the last six years
The Delhi High Court observed that there was an unexplained substantial delay in issuing the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 09-11-2017 and thus, is inexcusable in the eyes of law
ITAT noted that an identical issue was subject matter of consideration of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, hence following the precedent, the Tribunal directed that the payment received in this case cannot be treated as FTS under Article 12 (5) of India Netherlands DTAA.
ITAT reiterated that IBC has overriding effect on all the acts including Income Tax Act (‘IT Act’) which has been specifically provided under Section 178(6) of the IT Act as amended w.e.f. 01-11-2016.
A clarificatory press release dated 1-03-2013 issued by the Finance Ministry pursuant to the 2013 amendment makes it clear that a Tax Residency Certificate is to be accepted and tax authorities cannot go behind it. Further, based on repeated assurances to foreign investors by way of CBDT Circulars as well as press releases and legislative amendments and decisions of the Courts, the revenue cannot go behind TRC.
Bombay High Court: In the present appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 preferred against the
Supreme Court held that the CBEC circular was not contrary to the intent of the Central Excise Act and Rules. Thus, the show cause notice is not defective and unenforceable. However, the order of the Commissioner regarding the value of the goods sold to the Assessee’s sister concerns is in consonance with the Court’s earlier judgments and CBEC Circular.
AIFF did not render any service but concurred with the agreement whereby the rights were transferred from ZEEL to IMGR
ITAT upheld the order of the CIT and said that the assessee had only provided treatment to a few patients at concessional rates, which was less than 1% of the revenue of the assessee. Thus, the activities of the assessee cannot be said to be charitable activities and it is not entitled for registration or approval under section 10(23C) or 12A of the Income Tax Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad: While deciding the instant appeal in the backdrop of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) pending against
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi: While deciding the instant appeal pertaining to the Assessment Year 2015-16 where the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai: While deciding the instant appeal wherein a major issue that came before Tribunal was whether receipts
Calcutta High Court: The Division Bench of T. S. Sivagnanam and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, JJ., dismissed an appeal and connected application which was
Calcutta High Court: Md. Nizamuddin, J. disposed of a petition which was filed challenging the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) dismissed the application filed by the Revenue (CCE & ST,
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of jurisdiction of ITAT, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the
“It would be sufficient to describe the limits of the forest by roads, rivers, ridges or other well-known or readily intelligible boundaries for notification Section 4 of the Forest Act…specific details are not required.”
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) allowed the appeals which were filed against the common Order-in-Appeal