Fee u/s. 234E for filing TDS returns belatedly could not be levied prior to 01/06/2015 as there was no machinery provision of sec. 200A .
Assessee was entitled to the benefit of indexation on the total cost of acquisition from the year of allotment of flat dehors the fact that assessee had paid installments over a period of time subsequent to the date of allotment.
Since the expression ‘salary’ included benefit of leave encashment which was nothing but salary for the unavailed leave to the credit of the employee, therefore, the condition that carry forward of balance privilege leave, was barred and requiring employees to seek encashment from their previous employer was an arbitrary and unconscionable condition.
TDS credit was allowed as the commission income was not managerial service under India Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
Inspection/Search by Assistant Commissioner (ST) is valid on basis of authorization by Chief Commissioner under section 2(91) of the GST Act
Assessee in respect of premium paid to insurance company could not be brought to tax subject to the fact that assessee should not avail deduction u/s 80C of Act in respect of premium paid towards that insurance policy.
Where the parties have agreed to give only supervisory powers to a third party with respect to the disputes arising between them, and a clause which does not disclose the intention of the parties to give any adjudicatory powers to the third party, does not qualify as an ‘arbitration agreement’, as defined under Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
There was no levy of duty on compounded basis on Tin Packing machine and on pouches which had not been packed with the aid of packing machine, but were packed manually with the help of hand operated fillers or similar manually operated device and sealed with heat sealers/band sealers/candles/hot iron and the like.
Vicarious liability can be fastened on those who were incharge of and responsible to the company or firm for the conduct of its business. Supreme Court observed that a High Court can quash a cheque case only if it comes across some unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to indicate that the Director/partner of a firm could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques.
Demand notice issued by the tax authorities to a Senior Advocate seeking payment of service tax on legal services provided by him to a legal firm was set aside as Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 had been amended by way of substitution by virtue of two consecutive notifications, i.e., Notification No. 18/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 and Notification No.34/2016-ST dated 06.06.2016
