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.
Tapan Kumar Dutta Vs. CIT (Supreme High Court) On a conjoint reading of Sections 158BC and 158BD, it is clear that no satisfaction to the effect that undisclosed income belongs to the searched person is necessary before issuing the notice under Section 158BC against the searched person as Section 158BC speaks of a condition that […]
What is the correct Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) code and the applicable GST rate for our products MIDEL eN 1204 (rapeseed oil based dielectric transformer fluid) and MIDEL eN 1215 (soya oil based dielectric transformer fluid) in terms of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017?
The Supreme Court has said that once it is accepted that place of removal is the factory premises of the assessee, outward transportation from the said place would clearly amount to input service.
Principles of Mutuality: Receipts by housing co-operative societies such as non-occupancy charges, transfer charges, common amenity fund charges and certain other charges from their members are exempt from income-tax based on the doctrine of mutuality.
Income Tax Officer Vs. Dharam Narain (Supreme Court of India) 1. By the impugned order, the High Court has quashed the notice dated 16th October, 2006 issued under Section 143(2) of the Indian Tax Act, 1961 to the respondent– Assessee by allowing the writ petition filed by the said Assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in […]
In the instant case, the fundamental question which arises for consideration before this Court is with regard to the taxability of the amount received by the Respondent on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs.)
It is held The transactions undertaken by NDDB and Unions in accordance with the agreements made by NDDB with State Government of Assam and Jharkhand are not to be considered as supply between ‘related persons’ in accordance with Schedule I of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) read with Section 15 of CGST Act and corresponding provisions under the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned final judgment and order dated 24.02.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No 14376 of 2005 whereby a Division Bench of the High Court
Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of different models of EPABX. They are availing CENVAT Credit on certain inputs and input services as per CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004.
