Home
Recent Case Laws
Income Tax
The provisions of Section 142(2C) did not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction and authority by the assessing officer to extend time for the submission of the audit report directed under sub-section (2A), without an application by the assessee. We hold and declare that the amendment was intended to remove an ambiguity and is clarificatory in nature – Supreme Court

Income Tax Recent Case Laws

The provisions of Section 142(2C) did not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction and authority by the assessing officer to extend time for the submission of the audit report directed under sub-section (2A), without an application by the assessee. We hold and declare that the amendment was intended to remove an ambiguity and is clarificatory in nature – Supreme Court

by Team Taxcharcha28/03/201901010

Refund under Inverted duty structure

[docxpresso file=”https://taxcharcha.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Supreme-Court.odt” comments=”true” SVG=”true”]

To Download, Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi) vs Ram Kishan Dass Civil Appeal Nos. 3211 to 3230 of 2019 oths.

previous post

IGST & Compensation cess exemption to EOUs on Imports till 31-03-2020

next post

As the assessee is regularly following the accounting practice of making provision on year to year basis on the basis of the performance of the employees and the same is definite and accured liability of the assessee for the year for which the services have been rendered by the employees and the same partakes the character of the salary and hence cannot be disallowed. – ITAT Delhi

Team Taxcharcha