Writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy as the nature of challenge thrown in the writ petition was on the ground of absence of jurisdiction of Resolution Professional and the NCLT in IBC matters and not ‘wrongful exercise of the available jurisdiction’, thus bringing it within the fold of Article 226 of the Constitution.
Cloud hosting services provided USA company to its Indian customers were not covered under the definition of ‘royalties’ as per India-US Tax Treaty as the agreement was to provide hosting services simpliciter and was not for the purpose of giving the underlying equipment on hire or lease and accordingly, it could not be said as royalty within the meaning of Explanation (2) to Section 9(1)(vi) as well as Article 12(3)(b) of the Indo-USA Data by AO and DRP.
Application of bail by assessee was rejected as assessee had created three fake firms for procuring bills from the firms based at Delhi who had no purchases and tax which was not deposited for these transaction was utilized by the firms for not only availing ITCs but for getting the refunds by showing the sales to export units. Thus, refund was received for the tax which was actually never received by Revenue.
Service rendered by Tata Sons Ltd. under BEBP agreement between Tata Steel Ltd. and Tata Sons Ltd. was eligible as ‘input service’ for TSL and the service tax paid was available as cenvat credit to TSL under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Since there was no allegation by AO on failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, therefore, reopening of assessment was not based on sound footing and hence the impugned assessment order framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 was illegal and liable to be quashed.
Disallowance u/s 14A got restricted to the extent of exempt income, even if the provisions of the section 14A were attracted.
Since in statement in Form SVLDRS2, no specific notice for affording the opportunity of hearing was given to assessee with regard to variance of quantified amount, therefore, the officer was not justified in rejecting the application under Form SVLDRS2A stating inter alia that, the application was not eligible under the category of investigation, enquiry or audit.
Deloitte Haskins & Sells Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Amount of tax deducted at source from the payment made to the recipient of such income could be said to be the amount of expenditure incurred by assessee and paid during the year and, therefore, it was allowable to assessee as business expenditure. Held: AO did […]
The goods imported by assessee, such as, Big Cola, Big Orange Cola, Big Lemon etc., which they described as ‘carbonated beverage with fruit juice’ were neither carbonated beverage alone nor fruit juice alone gave the essential character of the products in question; both contribute to its essential character. The issue could not be resolved as per Rule 3(a) and 3(b) of the Rules of Interpretation and therefore resort was to be made to Rule 3(c). Since Customs tariff heading (CTH) 22029920 came last in the order, it prevails and the goods were classifiable under this heading.
Shri Amman Dhall Mill Vs Commissioner of Customs (Kerala High Court) Conclusion: Appellate Tribunal committed serious error in law by ordering release of Canadian Green Peas under Section 125 on payment of redemption fine as by holding that release of goods was the only option to Customs Commissioner in the case on hand the language […]
