Apparently there appears to be an attempt to shrink the ambit and scope of Transactional Provision and it requires immediate attention considering the wide impact it is going to have on the persons who have rightly availed the CENVAT Credit of the Service tax and bonafidly carried forward with the advent of the GST regime.
M/s Indus Projects Limited Vs UOI (Gujarat High Court) 1. Petitioner has to pay GST dues of Rs.3.85 crores (rounded off), for which, due to its financial difficulties, the petitioner has applied to the authority for installments. Such request came to be turned down by the impugned order dated 30.08.2018 without assigning reasons. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that […]
Tribunal, on examination of facts, has come to the conclusion that the investment made by the shareholders is not hit by Section 68 of the Act. It records, that the entire basis of the Revenue’s case is based on surmise that the respondent was taking bogus purchase bills and cash was introduced in the form of share capital without any evidence in support. Therefore, the view taken by the impugned order of the Tribunal on facts is a possible.
Where assessee made payment of commission to non-residents outside India for procuring export orders, income of non-resident agents could not be considered to accrue or arise in India and therefore, there was no liability of assessee to deduct tax at source.
he submission of the assessee that she is just an investor and as she received some tips and she chose to invest based on these market tips and had taken a calculated risk and had gained in the process and that she is not party to the scam etc., has to be controverted by the revenue with evidence.
PCIT Vs Starflex Sealing India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) We are pained at this attitude on the part of the State to obtain orders of admission on pure questions of law by not pointing out that an identical question was considered by this Court earlier and dismissed by speaking order. This is not for the first time that […]
File No.01/61/180/39/AM19.PC-3 Government of India Ministry of Commerce-& Industry Department of Commerce Directorate General of Foreign Trade Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi Trade Notice No. 33/2018 Dated: 20th September, 2018 To, 1. All Exporters/Members of Trade 2. All Regional Authorities of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade Subject: Activation of E-com module for SEIS, based on ANF 3B […]
These rules may be called the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Sixth Amendment Rules, 2018. They shall come into force from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
(1) These rules may be called the Companies (Indian Accounting Standards) Second Amendment Rules, 2018. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that CBDT’s Office Memorandum (‘OM’) dated 29th February, 2016 & 31.07.2017 by which AO’s have been directed to grant stay of disputed demand on payment of 20%/ 15% does not fetter the power of the AO & CIT to grant stay on payment of amounts lesser than 15%/ 20%.
