M/s. Kshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) From the record we found that commission was paid to Mr. Bhawarlal Sharma, whole time Director of the Company, for the services rendered by him to the Company. The Director has rendered technical services to the assessee company. The commission so paid is for the services […]
CST Vs. M/s IPAN (CESTAT Delhi) The Revenue contends that various ‘media monitoring services’, arranging press conference, interviews, education workshop, contact programme, etc. will directly or indirectly have relationship to the enhancement of sales and promotion of the product/services of the client. We are not convinced with such reasoning proposed in the appeal. It is […]
The assessee further contended that additions cannot be made towards purchases merely on the basis of third party information ignoring the evidences filed to justify purchases. The assessee further contended before the lower authorities that the assessing officer neither pointed out any error or discrepancy in the books of account nor did make out any case of sales made outside the books of account.
Pr. CIT Vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The proposal to reopen an assessment under section 147 of the Act is to be based on reasons to be recorded by the assessing officer. Such reasons have to be communicated to the assessee. However, merely because the assessee participates in the proceedings pursuant to […]
DCIT Vs Shri Subhash Gandhi (ITAT Amritsar) An order passed u/s 127 of the Act is not appealable before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the first appellate authority has no jurisdiction to decide the validity or otherwise of an order passed u/s 127, transferring the jurisdiction from one Assessing Officer (AO) to another, it is, but, […]
In the year 2016, ICAI revised the extant suite of auditor’s reporting standard (i.e. SAs 700, 705, 706) and also issued a new standard SA 701, Communicating Key Audit Matters in the Independent Auditor’s Report
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules to amend the Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between the Republic of India and Japan) Rules, 2011, namely
India and Iran signed an Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to taxes on income, today at New Delhi.
On 16.01.2018, the partnership firm of Nirav Modi group approached our branch at Brady House, Mumbai and presented a set of import documents with a request to allow buyers’ credit for making payment to the overseas suppliers.
The applicant poses for us to decide if the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) Contract falls within the definition of composite supply as found in the GST Act. Since we have elaborately discussed and observed above that the impugned transaction is a works contract u/ s 2(119) the GST Act, we need not even enter into the discussion as to whether the impugned transaction is a composite supply
