It is held that the petitioner assessee deductee is entitled to credit of the tax deducted at source with respect to amount of TDS for which Form No.16A issued by the employer deductor. Also held that the department is precluded from denying the benefit of the tax deducted at source by the employer during the relevant financial years to the petitioner.
Held that the retrospectivity of tax or its collection brought in by the Finance Act 16 of 2011 is not controlled by the validation clause in section 12 of that Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
The dispute in the present writ petition lies in a narrow compass and relates to the rejection of the petitioners claims for budgetary support under a ‘Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Service Tax’ regime on the ground that the claims were made for the period prior to the GST registration which is impermissible.
In the services rendered by the non-resident of procuring export order for the assessee, no knowledge has been provided to the assessee which could be exploited further by the assessee. In such circumstances, the services rendered by the non-resident cannot be held as ‘FTS’ under the India-France DTAA.
there seems to be a consistent view that if there is substantial compliance, denial of benefit of Input Tax Credit which is a beneficial scheme and framed with the larger public interest of bringing down the cascading effect of multiple taxes ought not to be frustrated on the ground of technicalities. In view of the above, we are inclined to affirm the order of the learned Single Judge in directing the petitioner/ respondent to enable the respondent herein to file a revised Form TRAN-1, by opening of the portal and that such exercise is to be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of issue this order.
imported goods and therefore could not collect further amount against the amended bills of entry presented by the new purchaser cannot be a ground to issue a Show Cause Notice alleging attempt to claim an undue refund.
The appellant or its employee has not conducted any due diligence measures. They claimed to have obtained KYC documents through email but have failed to produce them either before the Inquiry officer or at any stage. The irresistible conclusion can only be that they have no such documents and also no idea of who the exporter was and simply filed a Shipping Bill heavily over-invoicing the goods. Held that revocation of customer broker licence due to non-production of KYC of the exporters is sustainable in law.
There is no dispute that unaccounted cash and jewellery and valuables were recovered during the course of search conducted at the premises of the petitioner and the petitioner’s associates. These assets have to be taxed in the hands of the petitioner. To assess tax on the assets seized from the petitioner, there is no necessity for extending the petitioner the benefit of cross examination of witnesses.
S.J.Suryah (a.k.a. S.Justin Selvaraj) Vs S. S. Chakravarthy (Madras High Court) Facts- According to appellant, the credit for the story, screenplay and dialogue pertaining to the film ‘Vaalee’ was given to him. The appellant argued that the Trial Court had erred in granting interim injunction, merely because the Petitioner could not produce the written agreement […]
A transaction needs to be proved to be genuine by the person who substantially asserts the same. Once the assessee has been called upon to prove the genuineness of the trading of the shares leading to LTCG gain, the onus lies upon him which he fails to discharge in the present matter.
