Under GST Act , The Services provided by M/s TPADL with respect to the non-tariff charges recovered from their customers are not eligible for exemption and M/s TPADL is liable to pay tax on the aforesaid recovery made from their customers.
Maheshbhai Shantibhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The taxability of undisclosed income detected in the course of search in the case of partnership firm where the assessee is a partner is in question. We shall first take a look into the second proposition raised on behalf of the assessee. On behalf of the assessee, it […]
Tamilnadu Brick Industries Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The plea of the assessee is that the reckoning of date of transfer should be based on the execution of MOA dated 30.01.2012. The execution of MOA alone does not convey transfer of the schedule property to the developer within the meaning of section 2(47(v) of the Act […]
Appellant’s task was mainly confined to providing of advisory services in respect of investments identified by overseas client and advise it with respect of investment opportunities in the companies, who are engaged in developing the real estate projects.
The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 35/Commissioner/Noida/2016-17 dated 31/03/2017 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida.
Commissioner Tax Vs M/s Hanuman Industries Kichha (Uttarakhand High Court) There is delay of 1819 days’ in filing the Revision. It is stated that after receiving the copy of the judgment dated 29.01.2013, matter was discussed at various levels and the proposal was received by the Department on 01.05.2013. It is stated that Department instructed […]
Whether in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, supporting manufacturer who receives export incentives in the form of duty draw back (DDB), Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) etc. is entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Services being architect services does not fall under exclusion to the definition of input service as per rule 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, as the said exclusion is in respect of execution of works contract.
Mahaveer Kumar Jain Vs CIT (Supreme Court) It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. Furthermore, a taxing Statute should not be interpreted in such a manner that its effect will be to cast a burden twice over for the payment of tax on […]
The Appellant failed to prove that he rendered technical services to the Sumitomo Corporation and also the relevant documents to prove the basis for alleged payment by the Corporation to him. The letters exchanged between the parties cannot be claimed for getting deduction under Section 80-O of the IT Act.
