Skip to main content
By


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CBDT Instruction No 5/2014 dated 10.07.2014

By
Dear Members,   The Hon'ble CBDT has issued Instruction No 5/2014 dated  10.07.2014 , by which the monetary limits for filing appeals to ITAT / HIGH COURT / SUPREME COURT have been revised.   The New limits are:                                  Tax effect Appeal before ITAT                                Rs.  4,00,000/- High Court                                               Rs. 10,00,000/- Supreme Court                                        Rs. 25,00,000/-   Copy of Instruction is attached for your information.
Post a Comment
Read more

DVAT UPDATE + INCOME TAX UPDATE

By
Respected Members, Greetings for the day, This is for your information please: 1. Due date for E-filing DP-1 Form extended to 31.3.16 Notn. No. 1559 dt. 1.3.16. 2. Due date for E-filing CST Form-9 extended to 31.3.16 Cir. No. 39 dt. 29.2.16.  3. Due date for E-filing of CR-II for 1 to 3 Qtrs., 15-16 extended to 15.3.16 Notn. No. 1572 dt. 1.3.16.  4. Now Digital Signatures shall be Mandatory for filing DVAT returns w.e.f. 4th Qtr.,15-16 for dealers having turnover above 50 lakhs Notn. No. 1585 dt. 1.3.16. CA YASHU GOEL 9899263490 VICE PRESIDENT SALES TAX BAR ASSOCIATION
Post a Comment
Read more

S. 143(3) assessment void if case picked up contrary to CBDT’s Scrutiny Guidelines

By
Crystal Phosphates Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) S. 143(3) assessment void if case picked up contrary to CBDT’s Scrutiny Guidelines  For AY 2006-07, the assessee filed a ROI declaring income of Rs. 3.97 crore. ·          The case was selected for scrutiny under clause 2(v)(b) of the Scrutiny Guidelines issued by the CBDT. ·          The said clause of the Scrutiny Guidelines provided that a case had to be selected for compulsory scrutiny if an addition/ disallowance of Rs. 5 lacs or more was pending in appeal before the CIT(A) and such identical issue also originated in the year under consideration. The assessee claimed that as this condition stipulated in the Scrutiny Guidelines was not satisfied, the AO had no jurisdiction to select the case for scrutiny . The AO & CIT(A) rejected the claim . On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, HELD allowing the appeal : The CBDT’s instructions ...
Post a Comment
Read more