Case remanded as CIT(A) invoked disallowance for TDS default without making independent evaluation o

IT : Matter remanded where in absence of independent evaluation whether services rendered by assessee were technical services or professional services, disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source under section 194J was made

SEBI postpones applicability of new norms on issuance and processing of Delivery Instruction Slips

DELIVERY INSTRUCTION SLIP (DIS) ISSUANCE AND PROCESSING

Condonation plea of revenue with false explanation dismissed; followed by ramifications for contempt

IT : Where explanation given by revenue for condonation of delay in filing appeal was found to be false, revenue would not be given an opportunity to file an application seeking condonation of delay an proceedings for contempt of Court might be initiated

SC affirms demand along with penalty as assessee had reduced value of excisable goods by showing inf

Excise & Customs : Where assessee had deflated price of its final product and used transport firm to claim inflated freight charges, thereby, reducing assessable value, department was right in demanding duty on proper value with interest and penalty.

SAT affirmed penalty as appellant failed to make public announcement of acquisition of equity in exc

SEBI : Where appellant-promoters acquired shareholding of target company beyond 5 per cent limit prescribed under regulation 11 of Takeover Regulations but failed to make public announcement, appellants had violated law

Entity with more than 1/3rd related party transactions couldn’t be an appropriate comparable, ITAT s

IT/ILT : Where TPO made certain addition to assessee's ALP by adopting a new set of comparables, in view of fact that one of comparable selected by TPO was improper as it had related party transactions of about 36 per cent, impugned addition was to be set aside and, matter was to be remanded back for disposal afresh

CBDT notifies revised proforma for submission of proposal to file SLP

INSTRUCTIONS ON STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE ON FILING OF APPEALS/ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS (SLPS) BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT AND RELATED MATTERS INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING- REVISED PROFORMA B TO INSTRUCTION NO 4/2011 DATED 09.03.2011

CBDT allows usage of one mobile number and email-id for 10 user accounts in e-filing portal

UPDATE AND VALIDATE TAXPAYER EMAIL ID AND MOBILE NUMBER FOR THEIR E‐FILING ACCOUNT

RBI restores limit of Overseas Direct Investments to 400% of net worth

FINANCIAL COMMITMENT (FC) BY INDIAN PARTY UNDER OVERSEAS DIRECT INVESTMENTS (ODI) – RESTORATION OF LIMIT

Mere confessional statements won’t establish charges of evasion without any corroborative evidence,

Central Excise : In case of clandestine removal, for establishing evasion, there must be positive evidences reflecting purchase of excessive raw material, shortage of finished goods, excess consumption of power, seizure of cash, etc.; mere confessional statements cannot sustain charge of evasion

Missing agricultural income in previous year’s return confirms denial of sec. 10(37) exemption for t

IT: Where on perusal of earlier return filed by assessee, it was found that agricultural income shown was nil and assessee was unable to dispute that land was falling within municipal limits and, it could not be conclusively held that agricultural activities were being carried on land, petitioner was not entitled for benefit under section 10(37)

No denial of sec. 10A relief if assessee possessed expertise to develop software and had export perm

IT : Where there was permission from Software Technology Parks of India to export software, as well as proof of export, professional competence of assessee in developing software could not be doubted for denying its claim under section 10A

Writ dismissed against adjudication order as assessee had alternate remedy of appeal under Rajasthan

Excise & Customs : Since alternative remedy is available to an assessee under section 9A of Rajasthan Excise Act before Excise Commissioner/Tax Board, writ petition does not lie against adjudication order

Failure to allot shares after collection of sum from applicants due to Govt.’s restriction won’t att

IT : Where assessee, a Sahkari mill, deducted certain amount from purchase price given to farmers on ground that such collection would be utilized for issuance of shares, in view of fact that shares could not be issued subsequently as State Government did not give requisite permission, it could not be regarded as a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c)

HC vacates attachment of one property as other property offered for attachment was likely to fetch h

IT : Where in order to collect tax dues, revenue authorities attached a property belonging to assessee, in view of fact that alternative property offered by assessee was of higher value as compared to property already attached, assessee's prayer for release of property in question was to be accepted

HC directs AO to reconsider case as reasonable opportunity wasn’t given to assessee to substantiate

CST & VAT : Where assessee, a transport company, filed a petition under section 74 of Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 for rectification of assessment order stating that now it had collected permits in respect of a large number of consignments and prayed that after taking these permits into consideration tax be reassessed and Assessing Officer dismissed petition on ground that under provision of section 74 assessee could not be permitted to reopen case, since original assessment order was bad i

Penalty couldn’t be imposed on appellant as he took prudently all necessary actions to realize expor

FEMA : Where Adjudicating Officer imposed penalty upon appellant for contravention of provisions of section 18(2) and 18(3) of FERA on ground that appellant had failed to detect discrepancy in Letter of Credit accepted by L.C. Opening Bank which resulted in loss of right to claim export proceeds from said Bank, appellant was required to discharge onus and thereby rebut presumption under section 18(3) to show that appellant had taken all reasonable steps to receive or recover payment for goods ex