As per sub-rule (1)(i) and sub-rule (4) of Rule 114D, the statement in Form No. 61 shall be furnished through online transmission of electronic data to a server designated for this purpose and in accordance with the data structure specified in this regard by the Principal Director General of Income-tax (Systems).
Under electronic verification, the individual or a person (not being a company or firm) who does not have a permanent account number and who enters into any transaction specified in under Rule 114B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, shall make a declaration in Form No. 60 giving therein the particulars of such transaction electronically using electronic verification.
The crux of the dispute in the present case is whether such subsidy amounts are required to be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellants, in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.
In re Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (GST AAR Maharashtra) Whether accumulated credit by way of Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) as appeared in the Service tax return of Input Service Distributor (ISD) ON June 30, 2017 which is carried forward in the electronic credit ledger maintained by the company under CGST Act 2017, will be considered […]
The present appeal is against the Order-in-Original No.26/2017 dated 28.09.2017. The appellant is a manufacturer of cement and clinker falling under chapter heading 2523 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Central Excise duty on the cement sold by the appellant was mostly discharged on MRP basis under Section 4A and partly by payment of Central Excise Duty on Transaction Value at Adv
Customs Rate of Exchange of Conversion Foreign Currencies wef 06.04.2018 notified vide Notification No. 31/2018-Customs (N.T.) dated: 5th April, 2018
The input service credit on insurance is denied on the ground that these insurance has been taken for the family members of the employees which is in nature of perquisites. I do agree with the finding of the lower appellate authority as the insurance of family members of the employees has no concern with the business of manufacturing of the appellant.
A division bench of the Delhi HC comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Chander Shekhar denied the dis allowance made in case of old creditors under section 40(1) of the Income Tax Act.
In the case of M/s. A.N. Build well Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, the ITAT Delhi bench comprising Amit Shukla (JM) and SH. O.P. Kant (AM) was held that if the significant risk and reward are transferred to the buyer, the amount received from the buyer to the extent of the stage of completion of the project has accrued to the Assessee- Builder and it should be subject to tax in terms of section 5 of the Income Tax Act.
That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 1010.2017 (Annex.13) passed by the Respondent No.4, impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.3.2005 (Annex.9) and impugned order – in – Appeal dated. 12.8.2015 (Annex.10) may kindly be quashed and set aside
