The appellants before this Court were originally engaged by the Central Water Commission on part-time, ad-hoc terms. Applicant No.1 was appointed as a Safaiwali in 1993, Applicant No.2 as a Safaiwali in 1998, and Applicant No.3 as a Safaiwali in 1999.
In this regard, the petitioner was guided by Central Board of Direct Taxes (“ CBDT” for short) Circular No. 7 of 2018, dated 20 December 2018 for the A.Y. 2016-2017 issued under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act.
Delhi High Court held that the interest received on borrowed funds, which were temporarily held in interest bearing deposit, is a part of the capital cost and is required to be credited to Capital Work-in-Progress.
A person residing in USA desirous of transferring money to an individual or an entity in India, approaches a branch or an outlet of the assessee and transfers the money in USDs, together with the charges prescribed by the respondent-assessee.
CESTAT Bangalore held that no time limit has been prescribed under the statutory provision of Section 149 of the Customs Act hence circular no. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 cannot prescribe particular time period which is not provide u/s. 149.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance of claim under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act justified since assessee is engaged in only collection and transportation of solid wastes and is not engaged in operating and maintaining sold waste management system.
Delhi District Court allowed the application under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), however, imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on DRI due to 17 years of delay in filing of a complain.
The assessee was engaged in the business of providing works contract service and labour service. AO found that assessee had made a cash deposit of Rs.62,10,000/- in the bank account during demonetization period.
ITAT Bangalore held that interest rate should be charged on the basis of prevailing LIBOR rate and no SBI PLR rate since invoices are raised in foreign currency. Accordingly, it is directed to TPO to apply LIBOR rate as basis for computation of interest.
Madras High Court, taking into consideration financial crises faced by the petitioner, granted liberty to the petitioner to pay interest amount in ten equal monthly instalments since entire tax (GST) is already paid.
