Where there was delay in handing over possession to homebuyers, there was remedy available to the Consumer under Consumer Protection Act and Real Estate Regular Act which run parallel side by side. Moreover, one sided clauses in Agreement amounted to unfair trade practice and could not govern the refund mechanism therefore, refund was allowable to assessee with 9% interest from the date of deposit allowed.
Arcil Catalyst Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Where the rendering of the contracted service was to be contingent on readiness of the facility and that the purchase order for the goods to be imported was issued much after those terms of the service agreement was finalized, the rendering of service […]
Refund could not be denied only on the ground that only a part amount of the tax was paid through the electronic cash ledger as Respondents had failed to understand the distinction between the availment and the utilization of the input tax credit.
Swarnalatha Vs Kalavathy (Supreme Court of India) Conclusion: Suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of will be limited to those where either the signature of the testator was disputed or the mental capacity of the testator was questioned. In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there was no place for the […]
Salesforce.com Singapore Pte Vs DDIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Income earned by assessee from the Indian customers with respect to the subscription fees for CRM could not be taxed as royalty as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 12(3) of the treaty as by granting access to the information forming part of […]
Mangala A.G. Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court) Territorial jurisdiction of a Court in case of WFH would be where the official place of work was located and not the place of residence Conclusion: When a person was permitted to work from home merely as a concession or a convenience, place from where the […]
ACIT Vs S. Mohan Kumar (ITAT Chennai) Conclusion: Assessee failed to file necessary evidence to establish credits appearing in the names of above two persons in the books of account of the assessee as genuine transactions, therefore, addition of unexplained credits was rightly justified. Held: AO made additions towards credits on the ground that the […]
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 […]
