The challenge in this batch of appeals is to the final judgments and orders delivered by the High Court of Delhi in W. The core issue which confronts us in all these appeals relates to the question of commencement of the period for the purpose of payment of interest, on delayed refunds, in terms of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, for short "the Act".
Try out our Premium Member services: Free for one month and pay only if you like it. Indo Rama Synthetics I Ltd. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.
Shri Rophit Jain, Avd. Deepashree Rao, CA Date of hearing: CIT A 30 for assessment year on the following grounds of appeal: Actnull and void. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT A has erred in deleting the addition of 2 I. AO are as under: On verification of the case record it is found that the assessee has been allowed set-off of unobserved business loss or depreciation to the extent of Rs.
Further on verification it is found that the set-off has been wrongly allowed. The year wise position of can forward business loss or depreciation, whichever less is as below.
The set off is first to be done in Assessment Year relevant to F. The working of book profit for Assessment Year is as below: Provision for diminution in investments Rs. The assessing officer has allowed set- 4 I. The set-off has been allowed in excess to the extent of Rs. Hence, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment because of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose its income fully and truly.
In response to notices received by the assessee filed the necessary details called for by the ld. After going through the details filed by the assessee the ld. AO held as under: The set-off of earlier years business loss or depreciation has been allowed to the extent of Rs.
Accordingly, the sum of Rs. Income as discussed above Rs. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT Athe assessee submitted that the ld.Experimental feature warning. The hosting of judicial decisions on Tax Interpretations is in Beta.
We do not guarantee the accuracy of this text.
Cape Brandy Syndicate vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners Essay Acts. In October, , the appellants, Mr.
Norris, Mr. White, and Mr. Browning (called for the purposes of the assessments and this appeal the "Cape Brandy Syndicate"), appealed against assessments to excess profits duty for the accounting periods March 11, - December The Ghana Revenue Authority is to see to the integration of the three revenue agencies, namely the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Value Added Tax (VAT) and Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS), with one head called the Commissioner-General.
This appeal concerns a claim by the appellants, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, against the respondent, Mr.
McGuckian, for income tax upon a dividend paid on 27 November (in the tax year ) by Ballinamore Textiles Ltd. ("Ballinamore"), a company incorporated and resident in the Republic of Ireland. Reliance was placed on a decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs.
Messrs. E.V. Miller () 11 DLR (S.C.). The Revenue filed reference application under section 66 (i) of the Act formulating the afore-mentioned question of law which was answered in the affirmative by the High Court. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate  17 S.T.C.
(S.C.). held that a dissolved firm could not be assessed. The same question arose under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, The same question arose under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act,