Ashimara Housing Private limited Vs Vibrus Homes Private Limited (NCLT Delhi) Facts- An amount of Rs. 32,43,000/- was paid as an advance to the Corporate Debtor by the Operational Creditor. This deposit is towards the advance licence fee. By filing this application, the Petitioner has claimed that since the amount was not refunded, therefore, there […]
Held that the refund towards the IGST paid in respect of the goods exported i.e. zero rated supplies, vide the shipping bills ought to have been completed as the two circumstances provided in sub clauses (a) & (b) of Clause (4) of Rule 96 of Rules, 2017 do not exist. The shipping bills, as per Rule 96, exporter once file are deemed to be an application for refund of Integrated tax paid on the exports of goods and withholding of the same is made permissible under Rule 96 (4) when read with Section 54 as specified in the decision of Amit Cotton Industries.
ACIT Vs PC Jewellers Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Facts- AO disallowed the bank guarantee commission and credit card commission u/s 40(a)(ia) on the grounds that TDS is not deducted. AO rejected the diamond purchase from commission agent and added income @12.5% on the purchase alleging purchase as inflation of purchase price on purchases from accommodation entry […]
Section 57(iii) of the Act does not require that the expenditure incurred is deductible only if expenditure has resulted in actual income. As long as the purpose of incurring expenditure is to earn income, the expenditure would have to be allowed as a deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Act.
Reopening of the assessment was questioned by the petitioner. The principal reason for reopening was advertisement and marketing expenditure incurred by the petitioner was not deductible in view of section 37, as petitioner was prohibited from advertising under the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
(i) Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No.67; (ii) Filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act.
As far as the goods infringing the IPR (counterfeit goods) are concerned, once they are found to have violated the Rights of the rights holder, as per Rule 6, they become prohibited goods under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 111(d) squarely applies to prohibited goods which are imported. As confirmed by assessee, since the goods were not even ordered by them and were sent by mistake, confiscation of goods u/s 111(l) is correct and proper.
After framing of the assessment made under Section 143(3) of the Act, tangible material came into the hands of the AO through the investigation wing and upon perusal of the same, he made independent inquiries and applied his mind and upon due satisfaction, he formed an opinion that, the income has escaped assessment.
Yasir Amin Khan Vs Abdul Rashid Ganie (Jammu and Kashmir High Court) Facts- Special Mobile Magistrate convicted a man and punished him with simple imprisonment for a term of 6 months in a cheque bounce case of INR 10 Lakhs and in addition, he was also held liable to pay compensation of INR 2 Lakhs […]
M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. & Anr Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) Facts- The main issue raised was whether petitioners/purchasing HSD oil dealers who have been denied a refund of excess tax by the Respondent State Government of West Bengal which was admittedly collected by it from the petitioners through the […]
