1. Income that accrues or arises in India is taxable in the hands of both Resident taxpayers as well as Non-Resident taxpayers. Thus, if a Non-Resident has a property located in India, he is liable to be taxed in India on the rental income from that property, as that income accrues or arises in India. […]
Taxation of overseas income upon return to India 1 An individual under the Income Tax Act can either be (i) Resident Ordinary, (ii) Resident but Not Ordinarily Resident, or (iii) Non-Resident. The determination of exact status is important to know the tax incidence. We must remember that Residential status under the Income-Tax Act is different […]
Notice under section 143(2) under which jurisdiction was assumed by AO was issued to a non-existent company. The assessment order was also issued against amalgamating company. This was a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in section 292B. Accordingly, assessment order framed in the name of non-existing person was void ab initio.
Sh. Kavi Mahajan Vs M/s Heeranandani Realtors Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 10.66% of the turnover during the period from July, 2017 to August, 2918 and hence the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondent as […]
Goods belonging to the petitioner, were detained for an alleged discrepancy noticed in respect of the E-way bill raised in connection with invoice. Discrepancy noticed is with regard to the value of the commodity.It is also the case of the detaining authority that the commodity in question was undervalued by the vendor by offering excessive discounts to the purchaser. Reasons shown, that are impugned in this writ petition, are not sufficient for the purposes of detaining the goods in terms of Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act.
In re Alisha Foods (GST AAR Madhya Pradesh) The product ‘Fried Fryums’ manufactured and supplied by M/s. M/s ALISHA FOODS is classifiable under Tariff Item 2106 90 99 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Goods and Service Tax rate of 18% (CGST 9% + GGST 9% or IGST 18%) is applicable […]
Section 11(B)(1) of the Act read with the Explanation thereto, clearly requires any claim for rebate to be submitted within one year of export of the goods, where against rebate is claimed. There is no provision which permits relaxation of this stipulated one year time limit.
Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) Vs ACIT (Supreme Court) Condonation of delay in filing appeal(s) against common order dated 29.12.2003 passed by Income Tax Appellate Authority being barred by 1754 days.: If the stand of the Applicant in the Affidavit that he had no knowledge about the passing of the order is not expressly refuted by […]
Venkata Dilip Kumar,Kartha-HUF Vs CIT (Madras High Court) No doubt, Section 54 (2) contemplates that if the amount of the capital gain is not appropriated by the assessee towards purchase of new assets within one year before the date on which the transfer of original asset took place or which is not utilised by him […]
Services rendered by foreign concern for introducing a client did not make-available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes to assessee, therefore, related payment did not fall within the realm of “Fees for included services” as envisaged in Article 12 of the Indo-US, DTAA and payment made to foreign concern constituted its business profits within the meaning of Article 7 Indo-USA DTAA, and in the absence of any Permanent Establishment of the said foreign concern in India no taxability arose and, therefore, assessee was not liable to withhold tax under section 195.
