The Hon'ble HC, Rajasthan in the matter of Ravindra Singh Chaudhary vs. Union of India [D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20779/2019 dated October 16, 2020] held that Dream11's online fantasy sports games are not betting/gambling.
These appeals by assessee are arising out of the common order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai in Appeal No. CIT(A)-17 wherein penalties u/s. 271G were confirmed for A.Ys. 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15.
The Hon’ble HC, Rajasthan in Paridhi Jain v. State [S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 742/2020, 48/2020 dated January 20, 2020]after considering the fact that fact that the Petitioner being a practising Chartered Accountant and a lady
Bogus Sales/ Purchases: Addition solely on the basis of information received from the sales-tax department is not sustainable. Suspicion of the highest degree cannot take the place of evidence.
The Hon’ble Apex Court held that even though the goods were found to be different, payment of duty taking comparative value was done with bona fide belief. When entire exercise was revenue neutral (i.e. credit of duty paid on captive consumption was
The Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the Order of the Hon’ble CESTAT and held that the Respondent was not entitled to deduction of freight etc., from factory to buyer's premises.
Accordingly, it was held that even though the Appellant received the payment in Indian Rupees but the same is deemed to be convertible foreign exchange and accordingly the condition as provided under Rule 3(ii) of the Export of Service Rules stand co
The question of law urged by the assessee is whether the decision of the ITAT as to the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, is in error of law. Assessee mainly engaged in the business of coal preparation had reported a tax exempt in
The appellant company is engaged in the business of export of Marine products and also financial consultancy and trading in equity shares. Its total business does not consist purely of exports but includes business within the country. AO held that th
The substantial question of law raised was whether an assessee claiming exemption u/s 11 can claim that income exempt u/s 10(33) and 10(38) to be excluded while computing the application of income for charitable or religious purpose. Held that there