So far as the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act is concerned, it is noted that since the income of the assessee is exempt under section 10(23C)(vi), therefore, any disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) by the ld. Assessing Officer will only add to the income of the assessee, which otherwise is exempt under section 10(23C) as stated above.
Explore the Kalpesh Patel vs ITO case at ITAT Ahmedabad. Learn about the technical breach, CIT(A) dismissal, and the ITAT decision to grant an opportunity for e-appeal.
On the facts of this case, however, all that the Assessing Officer has indicated is that the assessee had a permanent establishment (PE) in India during the relevant period and that there was presumably some connection between the interest income of the assessee and the existence of the permanent establishment.
Delegation of powers to extend time limit provided under rule 96A(1) of MGST Rules,2017 COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, MAHARASHTRA STATE GST Bhavan, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010, dated the 29th June 2022. Order MAHARASHTRA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017. No. D.C. (A and R)-2/GST/PWR/Sections/2017-18/ADM-8.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (3) of […]
The CESTAT, Allahabad in the matter of M/s. T.S. Motors India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow [Service Tax Appeal No. 70377 of 2018 dated June 17, 2022] set aside the order passed by Revenue Department demanding Service tax for alleged suppression of correct value of taxable service by invoking the extended period of limitation.
In the case of Scented & Flavoured and/or Sweetened supari, the question to be answered is whether the addition of special flavoring agents would render the betel nuts into preparations of betel nuts, classifiable under Chapter 21. In this regard, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Crane Betel Nut Powder Works and of the CESTAT, Chennai in the case of M/s Azam Laminators Pvt. Ltd.
The undisputed fact is that nothing has happened during the year under consideration, the impugned land was converted into stock in trade in earlier assessment year. It is not in dispute that the agreement between the assessee and Unitech is not an agreement for sale and it is not in dispute that there is no consideration.
In the reference 1st cited, M/s. Multisorb Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad, (36AAJCM1498A1ZI) has sought certain clarification by filing an application for Advance Ruling. The Case was posted for personal hearing on 06.04.2022 & 27.04.2022. However, in the reference 5th cited, M/s. Multisorb Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad, have informed that they intended to withdraw their application of Advance Ruling
Explore the CESTAT Mumbai ruling in Raychem RPG Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of GST case on CENVAT credit refund. Detailed analysis of eligibility, rejection reasons, and legal perspective.
The applicant is in jail since 27th October, 2021 i.e. for more than 9 months. Appellant contended that it is settled law that in criminal jurisdiction, presumption of innocence has to be presumed. It is further submitted that in the GST portal, there is no system of cross-checking in their software for the traders who are wrongfully availing Input Tax Credit.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
