Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
The losses occurring to an assessee due to dacoity, theft or embezzlement, etc., may be claimed as deductible while making the income chargeable to income-tax under the head profits and gains of business or profession under section 28. The loss by theft is not covered by section 10(2) (xv) of the Income Tax Act, 1922
Ministry of Railways decides to modify Tatkal ticket rules for the convenience of passengers Under the proposed modifications, some existing anomalies are being corrected for the benefit of the passengers Under the modification, it is proposed to remove the condition of providing photocopy of identity card or indicating its number at the time of purchase […]
The Government remains committed to roll out the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from April 1, 2016. Currently a Central GST Law and a model legislation for the States were being drafted to levy GST on intra-state supplies; on inter-state supplies and levy of GST on imports.
As we have discussed in my earlier article, Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides relief in case of Primary Right. Suppose in a case Court order for payment of compensation for damages not Specific Performance of breach of contract. The compensation in this case is Secondary Right of the plaintiff. But if Court Order for specific performance of the contract, then it is enforcement of Primary Right.
In this series, I would like to share few practical scenario where I came across during my work. 1. Entry Tax : Suppose your company is buying some materials from other state to in the state of Maharashtra. Department has initiated assessment proceeding where it held that company is liable for Entry Tax in the state of Maharashtra @ 12.50%.
In the case of M/s ONS Creations Private Limited Vs. ITO, it was held by ITAT Delhi that if additional evidence can not be produced before AO for a reasonable cause by assessee, the CIT (A) must admit the additional evidences and assessee must be given an afresh opportunity of being heard.
In the case of Ms. Meena Rani Vs. ACIT, It was held by ITAT Delhi that If no satisfaction note has been recorded in the records of the searched persons but in the records of the assessee, assessment cannot be done U/s 153C
In the case of M/s. Holostick India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that While classifying a product for excise purpose Primary use of the product will prevails over the incidental ones. It further held that merely because a particular embossed hologram is self adhesive, therefore in all cases, it will attract entry 39 related to self adhesive is not correct. While classifying what is to be seen is whether the self adhesive part of the product is of primary use or the printed matter is of primary use. It cannot be that invariably in all cases, the moment a hologram is self adhesive it will fall within entry 39.
Obtaining a BAR Code is not the compulsion on the Business Houses, but having a Bar Code of the products gives the additional advantages to the holder than those having no bar codes.
The Supreme Court in the case CIT v. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC), has held, on the facts and circumstances of the case, that furnishing of bank guarantee cannot be equated with actual payment.
