CIT (A), notwithstanding the fact that in Financial year 2010-11 he had held that the payments were not in the nature of services falling under section 194J, not only ignored his appellate order in Financial Year 2010-11 but also chose to brush aside the explanations and evidences supplied by assessee without examining the same in detail. tI was deemed fit to restore the issue of short deduction of tax at source and interest thereon in the fourth quarter of Financial Year 2011-12 to the file of CIT (A) with a direction to pass a speaking order.
Assessee was justified in claiming exemption of integrated tax under the General Exemption Notification No. 45/2017 dated June 30, 20173, as amended by Corrigendum Notification dated July 22, 2017 on re-import of repaired parts/ aircrafts into India during the period from August, 2017 to March, 2019
Indian Newspaper Society was not required to deduct tax at source (TDS) under section 194I in respect of lease premium paid on following the orders dated 27.01.2014 and 20.06.2013 of Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi in assessee’s own case; and after due consideration of CBDT Circular dated 13-10-2016 which took into account the orders of High Court in assessee’s own case
All the services related to transmission and distribution of electricity were bundled services, as contemplated under section 66F(3) of the Finance Act, and were required to be treated as a provision of a single service of transmission and distribution of electricity, which service was exempted from payment of service tax. Thus, it was not possible to sustain the levy of service tax on the amount collected by assessee for late payment surcharge, meter rent and supervision charges.
Where the implication of a person was for a non-bailable offence, he could apply for anticipatory bail. If the applicant cooperated with the inquiry, there was no requirement of his arrest. Assessee was having his own address of residence and business. He could give surety ensuring his appearance. Therefore, he deserved to be granted limited protection for the purpose of conclusion of inquiry by the Proper Officer. Thus, Allahabad High Court granted the anticipatory bail to a person alleged of GST evasion to the tune of Rs.100 Crores.
Commissioner of Customs Vs Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Conclusion: Imported material could be disposed of or utilized in any manner including local sale once the export obligations were fulfilled and the only requirement as per condition No.(vii) was that such inputs should not be sold or transferred in the market. In other words, […]
Writ Court was not to be ordinarily approached in detention cases where effective alternate remedies by way of provisional clearance, and appeal thereafter, were provided against alleged arbitrary/illegal detention orders.
DCIT Vs Barclays Technology Centre India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Pune) Conclusion: Liability to deduct tax at source on leased line charges could be fastened only under the law prevailing at the time of payment. If no liability existed at the time of payment, any subsequent retrospective amendment could not be enforced against the payer. Once […]
Assessee was justified in claiming exemption from payment of integrated tax under the Exemption Notification on re-import of repaired parts/ aircrafts into India during the period commencing August 2017 to March 2019.
Income earned by assessee from sale of software, either directly to the customers in India or through Distributors or Resellers constituted its business income and not the Royalty income. As admittedly assessee did not have any Permanent Establishment in India, such income will not magnetize Indian taxation.
