Addition made by the lower authorities to the extent of opening balance of share premium of Rs.63,32,28,987/- u/s 68 in AY 2018-19 was unjustified as share premium received in earlier years had already been examined and verified in the income-tax assessments framed u/s 143(3) and the explanation furnished by assessee had been accepted.
Since the impugned order of rejecting the refund claim was passed on 23.11.2020 and this Circular came to be issued on 25.09.2021 giving a clarification as to the date for claiming refund under Section 89 of the CGST Act, and Section 19 of the IGST Act, 2017, therefore, the matter was remanded back to the authority to deal with the refund application in the light of the Circular No.162/18/2021-GST dated 25.09.2021, issued more particularly with regard to the applicability of the Circular issued by the Government, and then pass orders in accordance with law.
Non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud. Therefore, the judgment or decree obtained by fraud was to be treated as a nullity as the respondent had not only suppressed a material fact but had also tried to mislead the High Court.
In a significant case of Star India, the CESTAT had held that the impugned order had failed to identify the taxable service that the erstwhile foreign entities had obtained from the foreign service provider without which the test of Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006 was not applied.
While holding that the premium on redemption of preference shares was exigible to tax under the head Income from Capital Gains, the ITAT held that the revenue authorities were not justified in making the additions to the assessees income on the ground of notional premium receivable on preference shares.
Assessee had given the scientific basis for the warranty in respect of tyres sold to the truck segment and non-truck segment and further the issue was pending with the AO because AO had to verify the details in term of the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT,314 ITR 62(SC). Therefore, the matter need to go back to the file of AO.
Income from assets given on lease, though offered to tax under normal provisions, was not routed through Profit and Loss Account and the accounting treatment given by assessee was in accordance with mandatory AS-19 which mandated assessee to reflect investment in asset under finance lease as lease receivable in balance-sheet on asset side under the head loans and advances.
Assessee bank was jointly and severally liable for payment of the amount of gratuity to the employee alongwith the existing employer as per the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act
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.
