No Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed by CIT without recording satisfaction in revision order 263.  Provision of Section 271(1B) not applicable as CIT is not AO u/s 2(7) of Income Tax Act, 1961. ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2732 (2019) (01) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: …

Validity of Penalty notice non striking off relevant limb u/s 271(1)(c) upheld when subsequent opportunity notices sent by AO were not challenged ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2731 (2019) (01) ITAT The assessee had filed the instant appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A) upholding the penalty …

Application for obtaining approval of the NCLT for consolidation and division of share capital – Notice to be served to Regional Director

Service Tax Audit prima facie permissible post GST regime – Calcutta High Court. Authorities entitled to audit for the period when Finance Act 1994 was applicable ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2730 (2019) (01) HC Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: Infinity BNKE Infocity Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of …

When ITAT inspected documents furnished in response to show-cause notice u/s 263 and found transactions not bogus, no interference was called. Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the Revenue ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2729 (2019) (01) SC Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: The Revenue had filed an Income …

Malba charges was rejected as cost of investment for claiming deduction u/s 54F as there was no occasion for purchasing malba – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2728 (2019) (01) ITAT The Assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming in confirming the action …