Whether licenses fee which give assessee company long term right to use telecommunication spectrum and the annual extension of the same be considered as capital expenditures
Abhinav Agarwal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Snapshot of Basic modus of providing bogus LTCG 1. Merger of Unlisted companies with Listed Entity: This is the most preferred option for the persons willing to operate for the purpose of doing Long Term capital Gains. In case of the mergers with listed companies, the merger petition has […]
A.O. has not made any addition/disallowance on those two counts for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny, but he has made certain additions on an issue which was not the subject matter of limited scrutiny and there is nothing on record to suggest that the A.O. has taken necessary approval from the PCIT/CIT for converting the limited scrutiny to full scrutiny. Therefore, on this issue also the A.O. is not justified in making the disallowance of interest expenditure.
Aesthetica Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In this case nature of default committed by the assessee is not known as the inappropriate portion in the relevant column of the show cause notice has not been struck off. Consequently, the Assessing Officer himself was unsure of the category under which the default is blamed […]
Aditya Energy Holdings Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Madras High Court) The amount paid by the petitioner are only deposits pending proper adjudication under Section 73/74 of the CGST Act, 2017. It appears that the amounts were collected from the petitioner during March 2021, at the time when summons were also issued to the […]
Harjas Associates Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) It is not the case of the department that the appellant though has collected the service tax but not paid the same to the government. The demand confirmed in the impugned order pertains to GTA services provided by the appellant […]
Sunil Jay Prakash Singh Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) A perusal of the Order passed by the Respondent No.5 indicates that the applications were rejected without affording any opportunity of being heard. The question, as to, whether the tax liabilities are already quantified or not as on 30th June 2019 itself is a […]
Navi Mumbai CGST Commissionerate busts Input Tax Credit racket of more than Rs. 10 Crores | Arrests one businessman Acting on the intelligence about the operation of a fake ITC racket , the Officers of Navi Mumbai CGST Commissionerate of Mumbai Zone have arrested a businessman who is the is proprietor of M/s Maharashtra Enterprises […]
Section 35AD provides for investment -linked tax incentive for Specified Business. One such specified business of laying and operating a cross-country natural gas or cured or petroleum oil pipeline network for distribution, including storage facilities benign an integral part of such network.
High Court set aside the retrospective amendment in Industrial Policy Resolution denying GST reimbursement as the Court was not satisfied of the reasons given by the Opposite Parties for discriminating against assessee unit vis-à-vis KPCW which appeared to be identically placed as assessee and nowhere does IPR 2007 state that a cement producing unit that sources raw materials from outside would be ineligible to receive the incentives.
