Common maintenance charges received from tenants of property were towards maintenance and promotion of common area and the same were business receipts liable to be assessed under the head ‘Income from business’.
Notification pertaining to the ban on Online Rummy was declared as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to assessee under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and hence not enforceable.
Appointment of the custodian was mainly for the purpose of getting the customs formalities completed. Hence, his responsibilities also continued only to the stage when out of charge order for clearance either for home consumption or for depositing in a warehouse was passed by the proper officer. Refund application was rightly rejected as neither duty exemption under Section 13 of Customs Act nor the remission of duty under Section 23 of Customs Act was available to assessee.
R.Shanmugam Pillai & Sons Vs Designated Committee (Madras High Court) No denial of SVLDRS benefit by treating assessee under arrears category on basis of numbering of appeal and pending adjudication before CESTAT Conclusion: Even though assessee filed an appeal on 10 days prior to the cut off date before the CESTAT, therefore, on 30.06.2019, in […]
Education cess was an allowable deduction while computing the income under the head profits and gains from business or profession as it did not fall within section 40(a)(ii).
Where assessee had not made full and true disclosure of all material facts during the original assessment, the reopening of the assessment was not based on the change of opinion but the facts which emanated after the rectification application was filed by assessee and it was incorrect on the part of assessee to state that the reopening of the original assessment was on assumptions and presumptions.
Assessee was able to correlate the invoices with the undertakings and satisfied the substantial conditions set out in the Exemption Notifications. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked in absence of suppression or collusion with an intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, the order was set-aside by which the demand of service tax had been confirmed with interest and penalty.
Penalty proceedings under section 271D or 271E were independent proceedings and had nothing to do with assessment proceedings or its outcome. Therefore, CIT(A) was not justified in cancelling the orders imposing penalty on the ground that the assessment proceedings, during the course of which, penalty u/s.271D and 271E were initiated had been held to be invalid.
CESTAT quashed the demand for service tax on foreign remittance as assessee had paid the service tax on a higher value than proposed by the Department and also the demand had been dropped for the year 2010-2011, there was no reason why it should not be dropped for the year 2009-2010.
National Spot Exchange Limited Vs Anil Kohli (Supreme Court of India) Conclusion: NCLAT had rightly refused to condone the delay of 44 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the NCLT and rejected the claim of the appellant as the period of 15 days which maximum could have been condoned in view […]
