"08 April 2018" Archive

No Disallowance U/s. 14A on strategic investments out of Commercial expediency

Dy. CIT Vs. Alpha G. Corp Development Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

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....

Read More

Summary of clarifications issued by CBIC on issues related to GST on Job Work

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....

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

GST: Participate in the movement against profiteering

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 :...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules is Prospective & cannot be applied to AY prior to 2008-09

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s Essar Telehoding Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)

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 th...

Read More

No penalty for disclosure of agricultural income from Ancestral Property in HUF

Income Tax Officer– 2(1) Vs. Narayan Mali (ITAT Indore)

Indore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) by considering the fact that the assessee conceded the transaction of Sale of Agricultural Land in the hands of his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)....

Read More

SSI exemption benefit cannot be denied on use of assigned brand name

M/s. Kusum Industries Shri Mithlesh Mathur Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Delhi)

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 ...

Read More

Validity of differential Stamp duty on Instruments executed outside Maharashtra under Bombay Stamp Act, 1958

The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)

The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)  The bench noted that, in the present case, the deed is used in the State of Maharashtra for registering a charge by lodging a verified copy of the deed in the office of the Registrar of Companies in accordance with sections 125 […]...

Read More

Charging of interest U/s. 234B(1) in regular assessment not necessary for charging interest U/s. 234B(3)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs M/s. Baby Marine Exports (Kerala High Court)

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 […]...

Read More

No penalty on income on which tax been paid before notice U/s. 148 & disclosed later

Prabhjit Singh Sidhu Vs. Asst. DIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Chandigarh)

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 […]...

Read More

Family Name use not amounts to use of Brand Name of 3rd Parties

M/s Rastogi Furnishers & Decorators P. Ltd. Vs. CCE (CESTAT Delhi)

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 […]...

Read More
Page 1 of 212