Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
Central Government appoints Judicial and Technical Members in National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) for a period of four year
CIT Vs Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Specific case of the Revenue before the ITAT is that the Contract is a composite one. Shri. Chaitanya is right in his submission that the dominant purpose of the Contract is supply of the passenger rolling stock. Thus, having taken a specific stand before the […]
Seema Gupta Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30th June, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and the consequential notice dated 30th June, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year […]
1. The Government vide Notification No. 14/2022 – Central Tax dated 05th July, 2022 has notified few changes in Table 4 of Form GSTR-3B requiring taxpayers to report information on ITC correctly availed, reversal thereof and declaring ineligible ITC in Table 4 of GSTR-3B. The detailed Notification can be viewed by clicking here 2. The […]
HC held that electricity generated from Waste Gas cannot be classified under chapter heading 2716 and hence, cannot be said to be exempted goods, since not excisable goods so as to warrant reversal of credit
This Article covers a few challenging aspects of Section 194R apart from the ‘HENRY VIII Clause’ approach being adopted by the tax department in the recent years, among others.
Held that appellant has transferred the land to the developer through JDA and the developer had power to alienate their portion of property. Accordingly, property so transferred is not subject to wealth tax.
Held that services are supplied to Foreign Telecom Operators and hence place of supply of service will be location of service receiver as per section 13(2). Provisions of section 13(3)(b) are not attracted as the services are not provided to the individual.
Held that the interest income in question is required to be taxed at 10% in terms of the provisions of Article 11(2) of the India-Japan DTAA
Held that addition made on estimated basis, without rejecting books of accounts of the assessee, is unsustainable in law
