Vekanteswara Electricals Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court) It is to be noted here that as per Section 38 (1)(a) of the APVAT Act, 2005, a refund is to be made within 90 days from the date of claim made by the dealer. As stated above, the claim was made nearly a […]
Microstrategy Singapore Pte Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Insofar as the issue of treating the amount received towards provisions of software related services as FTS, we have noticed that the Assessing Officer has not brought any cogent material on record to demonstrate that while providing the software related maintenance service, the assessee has made available […]
Since, the said amount pertains to late fee and service tax, therefore the provisions of TDS does not apply to the late fee and service tax, hence we delete the addition of Rs.10,48,125/-, made by the Assessing Officer.
Umang Sitani Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) During the year, the assessee has received Rs.2.58 Cr. on account of compulsory acquisition of his land comprising an amount of Rs.79.17 lacs on account of compensation and Rs.178.92 lacs on account of interest on land compensation, the fact of which is not in dispute. The AO treated the […]
CESTAT held that in case of PLA balance, it is not deposited as a duty but it is deposited as advance towards the duty. The PLA Amount takes the color of excise duty only when it is utilized for payment of duty on clearance of excisable goods. The unspent balance of PLA is only advance not duty therefore, Section 11B is not applicable.
Coastal Fertilisers Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) We note that the cash sum of Rs. 94,50,000/- was deposited in the bank account held with Union Bank of India, account no. 495601010033544 on 16.11.2016. This date of deposit falls in post-demonetization period. On 08.11.2016 demonetization scheme was announced scrapping of currencies in the Rs. 1,000/& Rs. […]
Shobha Plastics Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The Principal Commissioner of Customs Ahmedabad vide impugned order has imposed penalty under section 112 (a) of the Act upon the appellants Jayesh Mehta and Harshad Vadodaria on the ground that appellants herein have aided and abetted the importer in importing the goods by way […]
C. Krishniah Chetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The grounds raised by the assessee, are only seeking set off of current year loss against income from house property and carry forward of loss to the future years amounting to Rs.76,26,766/-. The Ld.AR vehemently submitted that, the assessee incurred expenses in terms of […]
Hemera India Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that once the revenue admitted that they were consultancy charges paid for introduction of client then that would fall in the definition of payments made to intermediary or liaison agents for channelizing, arranging or soliciting work order. There is no finding whatsoever that any inquiry […]
CESTAT held that assessee is not liable for payment of either excise duty or cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on empty packaging material of cenvatable input.
