Follow Us :

Archive: 24 April 2022

Posts in 24 April 2022

TDS Rate on subcontracting charges paid to Chinese subsidiary will be 10% instead of 20% under Indo-China DTAA

April 24, 2022 3345 Views 0 comment Print

Infosys Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Conclusion: The applicable rate of TDS on subcontracting charges paid to Infosys China should be considered at 10% as per the India-China DTAA instead of 20% as per section 206AA. Held: Assessee was an Indian company, engaged in the business of development and export of computer software and related […]

A Poetic Tribute to the New Era of Faceless Assessments

April 24, 2022 1791 Views 0 comment Print

Friends, it is often said that a Poem conveys your thoughts in lesser words but with a greater impact. So, here is a Poetic Tribute to the New Era of Faceless Assessments by the author Shri Mayank Mohanka, in his Poem titled, What’s in a Face?. The entire scheme of Faceless Assessments has been explained beautifully in a poetic manner by the author.

Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act permits awarding punitive damage for non-deploy of airbags

April 24, 2022 6528 Views 0 comment Print

The damages awarded against the appellant may have gone beyond the actual loss suffered by the respondent and may not represent the actual loss suffered by him in monetary terms. But the provision of Section 14 of the 1986 Act permits awarding punitive damages.

As per principal provision of Section 56 of CGST Act, interest is payable @ 6% & not 9%

April 24, 2022 3690 Views 0 comment Print

Union Of India & Ors. Vs Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) Facts- M/s. Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. submitting that said Writ Petitioner was entitled on the basis of Section 16 of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of the CGST Act for compensation in receipt of delayed payment as detailed in […]

Liquidated damages, received under any contract, not liable to service tax

April 24, 2022 2022 Views 0 comment Print

The appellants are public sector undertakings established by the Government of Madhya Pradesh for distribution of electricity. The issue is whether service tax can be levied on liquidated damages received by the appellants from the other parties who failed to perform as per the contracts.

AO cannot assume Section 153C jurisdiction in absence of incriminating documents

April 24, 2022 2946 Views 0 comment Print

Neesa Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Since the proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act were initiated in the present case on the basis of documents which we have held above neither belonged to the assessee nor were incriminating in nature, they were not sufficient for assuming jurisdiction u/s. 153C of the Act. The […]

Car hiring charges – TDS under Section 194I Or Section 194C?

April 24, 2022 79890 Views 0 comment Print

IF car is hired not to perform specific services and charges are not paid on the basis of specific uses but the same is hired for availability of car for particular time or period without specification of particular services and charges paid on fixed basis then such hiring should be considered as rental contract under the provision of section 194I of the Act.

Mere use of words ‘willfully suppressed’ not enough to validate show cause notice

April 24, 2022 1368 Views 0 comment Print

Mere use of the words or expression wilfully suppressed with intend to avoid duty cannot hold the assessee guilty of wilful suppression. The same has to be established by the department by pointing out as to on what basis they have come to the prima facie conclusion that there has been wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Therefore, mere use of the said words and expression cannot validate the show cause notice. Therefore, the initiation of the proceedings itself is bad in law.

Interest income, converted into Government’s equity for Metro Project, not a revenue receipt

April 24, 2022 897 Views 0 comment Print

It is clear that the income generated out of earlier release of State Government for its project would have to be converted into State’s equity towards the project and the same cannot be counted as income of BMRCL. Thus, there is no profit motive as the entire fund entrusted and the interest accrued therefrom has to be utilized only for the purpose of scheme. Thus, it has to be capitalized and cannot be considered as revenue receipts.

Provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) not invocable on purchase of agricultural land

April 24, 2022 18432 Views 0 comment Print

Clause (iii) of section 2(14) specifically excludes agricultural land of the description given therein from capital asset which means that agricultural land was outside 8 Km. of municipal limits. Accordingly, agricultural land purchased by assessee was not a capital asset and, therefore, section 56(2) (vii)(b) was not applicable to assessee’s case.

Search Post by Date
June 2024
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930