Respondent CIT/PCIT directed to refund the entire amount of income tax they have recovered, which was an exempted amount and which the petitioner Army Officer has paid in respect of his disability pension.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be levied as assessee had proved that there was a reasonable cause for making the wrong claim under section 54 instead of section 54F.
Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling on Provident Fund on Thursday (28 February, 2019) states that employers can’t segregate special allowances from basic salary. It has to be included for PF deductions under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, said a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Naveen Sinha.
Income tax rate for company as well as for individual is same as of financial year of 2018-19. a) Corporate tax rate is 30%, surcharge is 12%, Health and Education cess @ 4%. Effective tax rate comes to 34.944%. Company whose turnover / gross receipt does not exceed 250 crore in financial year 2016-17, corporate […]
Dinesh Textiles Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Supreme Court) Noting that Central Excise Rule 12B and the notification talked about ‘aggregate value’ of clearances of job worker, the Supreme Court has held that assessee manufacturing textiles through job workers would be liable once aggregate value crossed the threshold. The Apex Court […]
ITAT held that roaming charges paid by the appellant to other telecom companies are not covered under ‘fee for technical service’ and such payments are out of the purview of TDS provision of 194J of the Act.
In absence of registered sale deed, the house boat purchased cannot be said as residential house and hence deduction u/s 54 cannot be allowed. Further The same cannot be equated with the residential house which is immovable property and hence deduction u/s 54 not allowed.
In re Joint Commissioner (in-situ), Ballygunge Division, Kolkata South CGST & CX Commissionerate (GST AAAR West Bengal) What should be the classification of tea bag manufacturing service. As the members of the West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance ruling differ on the classification of the service supplied by the Respondent to M/s Hindusthan Unilever Ltd.. […]
In re M/s. Inox India Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Gujarat) Whether supply of transport tank by mounting the same on chassis amount to supply of ‘tank’ classifiable under Heading 7311 or supply of ‘motor vehicle’ classifiable under Heading 8704 in the GST regime ? The product ‘Container for compressed or liquefied gas, of iron or […]
In re M/s. House of Marigold (GST AAAR Gujarat) Gujarat Appellate Authority confirms the Advance Ruling given by Gujarat advance ruling authority and rejects the appeal filed by House of Marigold. The products ‘Marigold Butterfly Bridal’ with watch and similar jewellery products containing watch classifiable under Heading 9101. Also Read AAR Ruling – Marigold Butterfly Bridal […]
