AAAR modified the ruling passed by the AAR, Gujarat and held that, supply of installation/up-gradation of machines and training services for and on behalf of the Company located outside India, by the supplier in India will not fall under the definition of ‘intermediary’.
Smt. Smrutisudha Nayak Vs Union of India (Orissa High Court) Orissa High Court held that assessment proceedings cannot be initiated if no incriminating materials are seized at the time of the search. Smrutisudha Nayak (Petitioner”)filed the petition challenging the initiation of the assessment proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act). […]
PCIT Vs Sonu Realtors Private Limited (Bombay High Court) Wrong deduction claimed which resulted in reduction of Tax liability can’t amount to concealment of income Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) filed the appeal being aggrieved against Order dated July 20, 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in which the order of Appellant […]
Karnataka AAR ruled that Pushti which is a powdered mixture of Ragi, Rice, Wheat, Green gram, Fried gram, Moong dal, and Soya in different proportions is classified under HSN code 1106. If unbranded it attracts Nil GST as per S. No. 78 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017 and if branded and packed it attracts 5% GST as per S. No. 59 of Schedule I of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Taxes (Rate) dated June 28, 2017.
The Applicant has sought an advance ruling that as per entry number 26 of Service Rate Notification whether job work services of anodizing, plating on the materials sent by their customers i.e. registered persons, falls under item number (id) which attracts 12% tax rate or whether it falls under item number (iv) which attracts 18% tax rate.
The brief facts of the case were that the Respondent was facing several problems while their filing of GSTR Form 3B due to the several glitches that were occurring in the Online GST Portal. Amidst these glitches, the Respondent filed their GST returns for the period of July, 2017 to September, 2017 with excess amount of ₹ 923 Crores and therefore, they have sought the refund accordingly.
Ferryman Trading Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) (CESTAT Delhi) Absolute discretion of Customs Authority either to order absolute confiscation or impose fine in lieu of confiscation CESTAT Delhi held that the confiscating officer under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 has the absolute discretion to either impose fine in lieu of confiscation or […]
Evertime Overseas Private Limited Vs Union of India and ors. (Bombay High Court) Evertime Overseas Private Limited (Petitioner) filed petition claiming that he is entitled to refund under the provisions of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). Factually, the Petitioner claimed the refund under the provisions of Section […]
K. R. Steel Traders Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court) Summary Order in GST DRC-07 quashed by Patna High Court for violating the principles of natural justice M/s K.R. Steel Traders (Petitioner) filed petition being aggrieved against Order dated August 16, 2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Patna South Circle and […]
In re Deccan Wheels (GST AAR Maharashtra) Maharashtra AAR rule that ITC can’t be claimed on indirect expenses when dealer is engaged in selling of second hand goods Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling (Mah AAR) ruled that Input Tax Credit cannot be claimed on Indirect Expenses like rent, commission, professional fees, telephone incurred for purpose […]
