“For a service to be categorized as a technical service, it has to be concerned with applied science, i.e., using scientific knowledge for practical applications, or industrial science concerning, relating to, or derived from industry.”
Supreme Court reiterated that to examine whether a particular transaction is sale of capital assets or business expense, multiple factors like frequency of trade and volume of trade, nature of transaction over the years etc., are required to be examined.
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
ITAT said that the entire addition has been made by the AO as well as CIT based on guess work and estimation based on some alleged information received from Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra and from DGIT that “the assessee has taken bogus purchase bills without having taken any delivery of the goods”, without applying their mind.
The Supreme Court affirmed the order passed by the High Court stating that the respondent assessee was neither entitled to the deductions nor profit earned under Section 80-IB on the amount of DEPB as well as Duty Drawback Scheme.
It is a trite law that the reasons, as recorded for reopening the reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis to determine the validity of proceedings under section 147 IT Act.
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.
Supreme Court noted that the ‘interest' only follows the ‘principal', therefore, the ‘principal' being the payable tax, resulted into no liability to pay the tax along with return. Consequently, held that there is no liability to pay interest if there was no liability to pay the tax.
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.
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.
Delhi High Court: On a question of law before the Court that whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) erred in law
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), Visakhapatnam: While deciding the instant appeal by the Revenue against the Order by CIT (A) deleting the
Meghalaya High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. and W. Diengdoh, J. disposed of a petition holding that the assessee
Calcutta High Court: The Division Bench of Debangsu Basak and Bibhas Ranjan De, JJ. disposed of a appeal which was directed against
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ., expressed that, merely because there was a delay
Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of S. Muralidhar CJ and R. K. Pattanaik J. dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee
It is essential to look beyond the mere concept of destruction of corporate entity which brings to an end or terminates any assessment proceedings.
Supreme Court: The bench of UU Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat*, JJ has held that the declaration under the Income Declaration Scheme