Simplify GST learning with memory techniques. Join live sessions, master CGST sections, and retain knowledge effortlessly. Register now for practical GST mastery!
The assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment orders for AYs 2004-05 to 2008-09. Though the appeals were ripe for hearing and the appellate authority had already posted the appeals for hearing on different dates, the AO without considering the pendency of the appeals issued demand notices
The CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, introduced with effect from 10.9.2004, provides for availment of the credit of the Service Tax paid on the input services/Central Excise duties paid on inputs/capital goods/Additional Customs duty leviable under section
Delhi High Court held that the directions passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRY), which is a quasi judicial body, should be well reasoned containing cogent and germane reasons and remanded back the non-speaking direction of the DRY for fresh adjudication.
Recently, the Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal remitted back the matter to the Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP) for reassessment since the directions of the DRP were found to be very laconic and non-speaking. The Tribunal, while setting aside such directions commented that the DRP has not considered the voluminous submissions of the taxpayer.
Excise Duty :- Notification No. 30/2010- Central Excise (N. T) dated December 21, 2010 has been issued for levy of excise duty on packaged or canned software on Retail Sale Price basis. • Entry 93A has been inserted in Notification No. 49
M/s G.S. Promoters (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) is engaged in development and sale of residential flats. The petitioner enter into agreement for construction of flats with the contractors. The flats are ultimately sold to the customers. The petitioner filed the subject petition to seek declaration that the Explanation to Section 65(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994 (henceforth referred as the Finance Act) and CBEC circular No. 334/3/2010-TRU dated 1 July 2010 (henceforth referred as the Circular) are unconstitutional.
Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of G.S. Promoters v. Union of India reported in MIT-2010-574-HC] upheld the constitutionality of the levy of service tax on the deemed service while selling residential complex by builder to buyer.
Generally, the liability to pay service tax has been placed on the ‘service provider’. However, in respect of the taxable services notified under Sec.68(2) of the Finance Act,1994, the service tax shall be paid by such person and in such manner as ma
The assessee is a company. It is engaged in the business of corporate and project finance and merchant banking. The assessee had taken premises at Bardy House, Veer Nariman Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 on rent. During the previous year, it incurred an expenditure of Rs. 30,94,066/- in connection with renovation of the aforesaid leasehold premises. The assesse
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee received a gift of Rs.30,00,000/- from Mrs. Chandra Hingorani. The genuineness of the gift was examined by the Assessing Officer by considering the various documents including taking statements of the assessee which was recorded on 19.12.2006.
