In Exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of Rule 17A of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules 2005, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State hereby in respect of the periods starting on or after 1st April 2016, substitutes the returns in forms 231, 232, 233, 234 and 235 for the purpose of rule 17, 18 and 45 namely.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of Rule 17A of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State in respect of the periods starting on or after 1st April 2016, for the purpose of provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 40A of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005,
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of Rule 17A of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State hereby in respect of the periods starting on or after 1st April 2016, substitutes return in form 424 for the purpose of clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 40 namely :-
ITAT Bangalore held in the case of GXS India Technology Center Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that a company which is engaged in development of software products and services cannot be compared to a company which is purely software development services provider.
The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner provides labour in the construction of buildings to various builders under a works contract. It is alleged that under the agreement the petitioner is liable to pay service tax w.e.f. 01.07.2012.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Mrs. Sujata Sharma vs. Shri Manu Gupta that post Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 which amended the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, all rights which were available to a Hindu male are now also available to a Hindu female, there is no reason why Hindu women should be denied the position of a Karta.
ITAT Delhi held in the case of Headstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that both the submission of the assessee is unacceptable. Regarding first submission for not carrying out any transfer pricing adjustment in view of the benefit enjoyed by it u/s 10A is concerned, we find that no exception has carved out by the statute for non-determination of the ALP of an international transaction
