Where assessee had made investment in subsidiary companies not to earn tax free income but out of commercial expediency, no dis allowance under section 14A was called for.
The content of the article is based on Circular No.38/12/2018 dated 26th Mar’18. Various issues with respect to job work have been clarified by this circular. Summary of this circular has been prepared.
Under GST suppliers of goods and services must pass on any reduction in tho rate of tax or tho benefit of Input Tax Credit to consumers by way of commensurate reduction in prices. If this is not done. the consumers Interest is protected by the National Anti-profiteering Authority, which may order :
CIT Vs M/s Essar Telehoding Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) Applying the principles of statutory interpretation for interpreting retrospectivity of a fiscal statute and looking into the nature and purpose of subsection (2) and subsection (3) of Section 14A as well as purpose and intent of Rule 8D coupled with the explanatory notes in the […]
As the appellant is using the brand name of another person but it was by way of assignment deed. In that circumstances, the appellant is not using the brand name of another person but they are using their own brand name as assigned to them. In that circumstance, benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 cannot be denied to the appellant. Therefore, we hold that appellants are entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003.
CIT Vs M/s. Baby Marine Exports (Kerala High Court) If the regular assessment was upheld finally and there was a reassessment and re-computation of total income, the assessee would have been liable to pay advance tax to that extent also, on which, an interest would be levied under Section 234B(3). It is been held that […]
Prabhjit Singh Sidhu Vs. Asst. DIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Chandigarh) The facts before us also demonstrate that the disclosure in the return of income filed under section 148 of the Act was voluntary and before detection of the same by the Revenue. The payment of taxes on the said income two months prior to issue […]
M/s Rastogi Furnishers & Decorators P. Ltd. Vs. CCE (CESTAT Delhi) Aaffixing the family name or brand name in the letter head does not amount to the use of brand name of third parties. In the instant case, there is no third party who owns the brand name of ‘Rastogi‘. The Department has neither issued […]
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned order dated 28th July, 2017 to the extent it allows the Revenue’s application for rectification, is without jurisdiction. This is so as it amounts to review of its order dated 6th June, 2016 which had been passed in an appeal for Assessment Year 2004 05 after due consideration of the very issue. In any case, the issue raised is a debatable issue. Therefore, outside the scope of rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act.
Articles compiles due date of GSTR-3B For the March, 2018,GSTR-6 for July 17 – April 18,GSTR-5A for March 2018, GSTR-5 for March 2018,GSTR-4 for the quarter of Jan-Mar, 2018,GSTR-1 for the quarter of Jan-Mar, 2018,GSTR-1 For the Month of March 2018, GSTR-1 For the Month of February 2018, RFD-10 for July 2017 to September 2017, […]
