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!
Checking tax leakage has always been a crucial task for any tax enforcement authority. Goods and Service Tax (GST) law has been structured not only to bring a new Indirect Tax code in the country, but to also embolden the revenue authorities in their war against tax evasion. One such provision is section 9(4) of the Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act).
The issue that a particular expenditure incurred by assessee is a capital expenditure or a revenue one has remained controversial. The facts & circumstances of each case differ. However, the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this respect guide in resolving the issue.
As appears from the news paper reports, it looks like, that the Government is in a hurry to implement GST with immediate effect. The proposed date, 1st July 2017, is not far away.
In India, new transfer pricing rules were introduced in 2002. Since then, the number of cases identified for audit and the transfer pricing adjustments locked up in disputes have increased tremendously. In order to reduce the increasing number of transfer pricing audits and prolonged disputes
A dispute arose on applicability of the provisions of section 194-I of the Act, on payment of Passenger Service Fees (PSF) by an Airline to an Airport Operator. The Honourable High Court of Bombay in CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd.’ declined to admit the ground relating to applicability of provisions of section 194-I of the Act on PSF charges holding that no substantial question of law arises.
Dispute arose between the Department and the assessees with regard to adjustment of such seized/requisitioned cash against advance tax liability etc. Several Courts held that on an application made by the assessee, the seized money is to be adjusted against the advance tax liability of the assessee.
Section 2(22) clause (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) provides that dividend includes any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares
The all-powerful GST Council headed by the Honble Finance Minister, Mr. Arun Jaitley met for the sixteenth time with an agenda to review the rates on basis of representation made by the Industries & Traders & take up pending Draft Rules. Ahead of this meeting, we have moved one step more closure towards GST rollout from July 1, 2017 as envisaged.
ACIT Vs Metallizing Equipment Co. (P) Ltd. (ITAT Jodhpur) In Hero Cycles Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Chd) 665. Tribunal, Chandigarh, has held that the expenditure on telephone installed at the residences of directors is not covered by section 38(2) and expenses in case of a company cannot be for non-business purposes and the […]
Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs GKK Capital Markets (P)Ltd 392 ITR 196 (Calcutta) has taken a view that the shares held as stock in trade and the expenses in relation to shares so held cannot be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decision and the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case, we are of the view that order of CIT(A) on this issue does not call for any interference.
