When the Instrument was not chargeable with stamp duty as it was not required to be stamped, section 35 had no application and no bar could be imposed due to it being not duly stamped.
In re Saddles International (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh) In a pivotal ruling by the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in Andhra Pradesh, the classification and GST rate of original car seat covers designed for permanent integration with vehicle seats have been decisively addressed. This determination stemmed from an application by Saddles International Automotive & Aviation […]
Salary received by a Non-Resident of India (NRI) in India by exercising employment in Singapore should not be taxed in India as assessee would be entitled for the benefit of Article 15 of relevant DTAA which provided that the salary would be taxable in the country wherein the employment was exercised and the same would be subject to verification by AO that this income had already been offered to tax in Singapore and assessee had paid due taxes. AO would also verify that no credit of Taxes paid in India had been taken by assessee in Singapore.
Since assessee had deliberately not avoided TDS and there was no contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty was not leviable for not deducting TDS on foreign remittances.
Bombay High Court held that one cannot tax the amount having not accrued and not been received by the assessee on an assumption and presumption that in the future, the Small Causes Court will at least order the said sum in favour of the Appellant.
Kerala High Court held that Held that the limitation prescribed u/s. 17(D) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act [KGST] would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the high Court had set aside the original assessment and remanded the matter back to redo the assessment.
Kerala High Court held that filing an untrue or incorrect return in view of section 67(1)(d) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [KVAT] assumes more rigour in the teeth of the onerous obligation, resulting in the imposition of a penalty. Accordingly, imposition of penalty justified.
Delhi High Court held that refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) permissible as rate of taxes on certain inputs being higher than tax chargeable on the output supply.
ITAT Mumbai held that mere charging of guarantee fees for services by the assessee trust ipso facto is not sufficient to invoke the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, that too without establishing that the object and purpose of the assessee is profit motive.
Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings will be invalid where once a query is raised and answered by the assessee in original assessment proceedings but thereafter AO didnt made any addition in the assessment order.
