Reopening of an assessment under Section 148 was not justified on the ground that AO was of the opinion that a contingency might arise in future resulting an escapement of income which would be wholly impermissible and would amount to a rewriting of the statutory provision.
ITO Vs Kirit Raojibhai Patel (ITAT Mumbai) Sale of transferable development rights did not attract capital gains tax since the cost of acquisition for the same did not exist. Held: AO held that transferable development rights (TDRs) arising out of an existing land was an immovable property, the transfer of such TDRs amounted to transfer […]
T. Takano Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India (Supreme Court of India) The principal issue was whether an investigation report under Regulation 9 of the PFUTP Regulations must be disclosed to the person to whom a notice to show cause was issued. It was held that assessee had a right to disclosure of the material […]
Exemption notification should not be liberally construed and it was for the assessee to show that he came within the purview of the notification as on and after 01.07.2012, such activity by the Market Committees was put in the Negative List, it could safely be said that under the 2006 circular, the Market Committees were not exempted from payment of service tax on such activities.
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Foodworld (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: Asessee was entitled to Service Tax Refund under errorneous advice of of service involved in sale of food to passengers subject to passing unjust enrichment test. Held: Assessee was having STC No.AAAFF497EST001 and was mainly engaged in the business of sale of food on board the […]
NCLT Order accepting IBA Application for want of Jurisdiction post-amendment to Section 4 was quashed in the light of amendment to section 4 wherein Part II of the IBC could apply only to matters relating to insolvency and liquidation of corporate debtors, where the minimum amount of default was Rs.1 Crore.
Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs Rahul Modi (Supreme Court of India) Conclusion: The indefeasible right of an accused to seek statutory bail under Section 167(2), CrPC arose only if the charge-sheet had not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period. Held: In the instant case, investigation was directed to be conducted into the […]
Where the legality and validity of the agreement was under challenge, there was no infirmity into the order of CIT(A) to the extent it was held that the transfer of shares could not be subjected to capital gain tax in the year under consideration on the ground that the entire transaction had not fructified.
Interest was not leviable by Commissioner under Cenvat Credit rules as Commissioner, on his own, examined as to whether assessee was eligible to avail and utilize CENVAT credit under rule 11 or rule 3(2) of the 2004 Credit Rules however, assessee had not made any such claim for availing the credit. It was, therefore, not possible to uphold the order passed by Commissioner.
Since Indian subsidiary of assessee-company was operating in an independent manner and there was nothing to show that factually speaking the Indian subsidiary constituted a PE of assessee in India, therefore, AO had erred in invoking section 9 of the Act and/or Article 5 of the India-USA DTAA in order to say that the assessee company had a PE in India. Where assessee did not have a PE in India, income of assessee was not allowable to be taxed in India.
