The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. (supra), was followed in CIT vs.Nayyars Minerals Export (P.) Ltd. reported in (1998) 231 ITR 864 (HP), wherein it was held that hiring of certain machineries from sister concern would not amount to transfer as provided under Section 80J(4)(ii) of the Act.
CIT Vs Indian Overseas Bank (Madras High Court) The question as to whether the date, on which the order under Section 147 of the Act was passed should be reckoned as the starting point of limitation, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has been dealt with by several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme […]
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) has invited a lot of discussion in the past few years. However, 2020 has been a more challenging year with the COVID-19 virus pandemic followed by complete lockdown, isolation, and numerous companies facing the wrath of the pandemic and resulting financial challenges. Since the Code is still in its […]
CIT Vs Wheels India Limited (Madras High Court) After hearing the submissions of the auhorized representative of the assessee, the CIT(A) perused the copies of the agreement and on facts, found that the amounts paid by the assessee were sales commission and marketing services to nonresident agents outside India for their services rendered outside India […]
Directorate General of GST Intelligence Vs Pankaj Agarwal (Jharkhand High Court) Individual avoiding appearance before competent authority without any just excuse cannot escape coercive action including arrest Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand by an order dated July 09, 2021, observed that section 69 read with section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, […]
The Applicant is accused of procuring bogus bills from companies that did not exist in order to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) and hence was taken into Judicial Custody (JC). The Applicant thereby has contended that the companies in question have ceased to manufacture goods but have not ceased to exist in entirety. Furthermore, the Applicant also contended that he was not provided with any reason or grounds before his arrest and hence, the Applicant is entitled to bail.
It is stated that proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 50 CGST Act, 2017 was amended to substitute retrospectively with effect from the 1’st July, 2017, vide section 112 of Finance Act, 2021, so as to charge interest on net cash liability with effect from the 1stJuly, 2017. Such amendment to Section 50 through Finance Act, 2021 has been notified to come into effect from 1st July, 2017. Interest shall be computed on the net tax liability to be debited from Electronic Cash Ledger after Input Tax Credit (ITC)is utilised.
ITO Vs Braitrim India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Admittedly, as the remittances made by the asessee before us, viz. BIPL to M/s Braitrim UK Ltd. had been held to have been made towards reimbursement of expenses (without any mark-up), therefore, in the absence of any income element chargeable to tax in the hands of the […]
OPC Assets Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court) The order passed by the Superintendent and the approach that he has adopted is totally unsatisfactory. To begin with, the order reads more like a thesis in several fields of law in which he has tried to exhibit his half-baked, incomplete and internet […]
Suraj Pulses Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) We find that as far as the reasons recorded, though there is a specific mention about amount of 20,50,000/- received by way of accommodation entry, however neither there is any mention from whom the assessee had received the amount nor what is the nature of the entry […]
