Jindal Poly Film Ltd Vs Designated Authority & Anr. (Delhi High Court) In a case involving clubbing of Advance Authorisations issued in 2004 and 2010, Delhi High Court has held that clubbing can be provided only if export obligation period of authorization issued at a prior point of time allowed under Paragraph 4.22 of the […]
Seeks to insert explanation in an entry in notification No. 12/2017 – Union Territory Tax (Rate) by exercising powers conferred under section 8(3) of UTGST Act, 2017 Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 23/2018-Union Territory Tax (Rate) New Delhi, the 20th September, 2018 G.S.R….. (E).- In exercise of the powers […]
Seeks to notify the rate of tax collection at source (TCS) to be collected by every electronic commerce operator for inter-State taxable supplies Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Notification No. 02/2018 — Integrated Tax New Delhi, the 20th September, 2018 G.S.R. …..(E).— In exercise […]
Section 35 (5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 provides that every registered person whose aggregate turnover exceeds INR 2 Crore is required to submit a reconciliation statement along with the audited reports. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, vide notification no. 49/2018 – Central Tax dated 13th September, 2018, has […]
Too much is being said about the divergences in the RBIs assessment of Yes Bank for the last two years. It is not that only Yes Bank had divergence in asset classification norms of RBI.
Apparently there appears to be an attempt to shrink the ambit and scope of Transactional Provision and it requires immediate attention considering the wide impact it is going to have on the persons who have rightly availed the CENVAT Credit of the Service tax and bonafidly carried forward with the advent of the GST regime.
M/s Indus Projects Limited Vs UOI (Gujarat High Court) 1. Petitioner has to pay GST dues of Rs.3.85 crores (rounded off), for which, due to its financial difficulties, the petitioner has applied to the authority for installments. Such request came to be turned down by the impugned order dated 30.08.2018 without assigning reasons. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that […]
Tribunal, on examination of facts, has come to the conclusion that the investment made by the shareholders is not hit by Section 68 of the Act. It records, that the entire basis of the Revenue’s case is based on surmise that the respondent was taking bogus purchase bills and cash was introduced in the form of share capital without any evidence in support. Therefore, the view taken by the impugned order of the Tribunal on facts is a possible.
Where assessee made payment of commission to non-residents outside India for procuring export orders, income of non-resident agents could not be considered to accrue or arise in India and therefore, there was no liability of assessee to deduct tax at source.
he submission of the assessee that she is just an investor and as she received some tips and she chose to invest based on these market tips and had taken a calculated risk and had gained in the process and that she is not party to the scam etc., has to be controverted by the revenue with evidence.
