Seeks to exempt payment of tax under section 5(4) of IGST Act, 2017 till 30.09.2018 vide Notification No.13/2018 – Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 29th June, 2018.
Investments on whom dividend received, though chargeable to tax but allowed as rebate in view of DTAA agreement cannot be included for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s 14A of Income Tax Act.
The assessee company was engaged in the business of Developing, Maintaining and Operating of Infrastructure Facilities. Return declaring an income of Rs. 29,53,100/- was filed on 30/09/2009. The same was processed u/s 143(1) on 13/09/2010. Case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) was sent on 20/08/2010.
DPJ Viniyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Assessing Officer treated the income on account of purchase and of shares under the head ‘business income’ instead of under the head ‘capital gain’ as claimed by the assessee. On Appeal CIT(A) held that assessee is making purchase and sale on a continuous basis and besides being […]
Sh. Shridhar Bedi through Legal Heir Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) Proper notice u/s 148 of the Act for initiating reassessment proceeding is not a mere procedural requirement but the service of the prescribed notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any of the reassessment made u/s 147. It is settled […]
M/s. Nidhi Packers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the due date of filing of return of income for the year under consideration was extended by the CBDT by a period of 15 days and since the return originally filed by the assessee was within such extended […]
Payment towards outright purchase of copyright and technical know-how over the software could not be treated as royalty paid for acquisition of right to use copyrights and technical know-how, therefore, said payment could not be subjected to TDS under section 194J.
The appeals are directed against the Order in Original No. 20/2013 dated 11.03.2013 as well as Order-in-Original No.66/2013 dated 07.11.2013. The appellant is a dealer of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (in short hereinafter called as “MUL”) in respect of the cars manufactured by MUL
Security deposit for taking office space on lease and subsequently terminating the agreement due to business consideration was a business decision and loss on account of forfeiture of security deposit had occurred in the course of business and was, therefore, allowable.
Commissionerate of CT and GST, Odisha (At Cuttack) (Finance Department, Government of Odisha) Clarification No. POL-56/3/2017-Policy 9160/CT, Dated 21st June, 2018 To Director (Finance) Odisha Forest Development Corporation Bhubaneswar Sub: Clarification on GST rate applicable on services rendered by way of plantation activities Ref: Your letter no. 10175/Dt.28.05.2018 Sir, I am directed to clarify the […]
