A reading of the agreement between STL and the assessee clarifies that a specific amount, i.e., Rs. 9 Crores was paid by the assessee to the transferor who owned commercial rights towards the network and the facilities.
The Tribunal had also, considering the fact that when there was a scope for doubt whether the goods were dutiable or not, refused to apply extended period of limitation. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Camphor Drugs and Laminates
Schedule II of the Companies Act 2013, replaced Schedule XIV of the Companies act 1956 provisions governing the charge of Depreciation. The Companies Act 2013 requires companies to charge Depreciation as per Schedule II which provides useful lives to compute depreciation.
Frequently Asked Questions Q.1 What is Form T-2? Ans. To minimize physical interaction between dealers and VAT Officials and for efficient administration of the Act, it is considered necessary that the details of invoices and goods receipt note in respect of goods purchased or received as stock transfer from outside Delhi be sought from the […]
With the introduction of POT Rules, 2011 and advent of Negative list based comprehensive taxation of services in 2012, Service Tax Wing, CBEC unveiled the revised procedures for scrutiny of returns that must be followed by the Revenue with effect from 1st August, 2015 vide Circular No. 185/4/2015-ST,Dated: July 07, 2015.
Nikita Bhatia With a constant attempt to make the law simpler for entrepreneurs and promote & support new and existing business, the Government has bought in substantial changes through the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2015, which got the Presidential Assent on the 25th of May, 2015. This reflects the Government’s willingness to boost and promote the […]
Section 20 of Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act directs every dealer to file complete and self consistent returns. Rules 17 & 18 deal with forms and periodicity of return, summary of which is as follows:-
The various authorities of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 has highlighted that the power under Section 263 cannot be invoked to correct a mere error of an AO, based upon an incorrect assumption of fact.
Hon’ble HC did not find any merit in the ground of delay in issuance of notice. Court further remitted the matters ITAT to decide afresh on merits. In the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Knitwears, particularly the contextual facts discussed
Whether CIT (A) has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by assessee. Whether CIT (A) was right in sustaining the additions made by AO which are not applicable to the assessee.
