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
Impugned in the present revision petitions are the different orders passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda, whereby the J.D.-Insurance Company was directed to deposit within 15 days the TDS amount, which has been deducted at source. The J.D. was given liberty to withdraw the TDS amount from Income Tax Department.
The core issue involved in the present case is with regard to the admissibility or otherwise of the Cenvat Credit on Goods Transport Agency service availed for transport of goods from the place of removal to buyer’s premises.
t is trite that ignorance of the law is not an excuse and lack of understanding would also be akin to ignorance; which cannot validly be taken up. The delay is also huge coming to 1964 days.
Introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) across India with effect from 1st of July 2017 is a very significant step in the field of indirect tax reforms in India. For quick and easy movement of goods across India without any hindrance, all the check posts across the country are abolished.
For a PCCIT region where the NCLT bench is not situated in the region, the concerned PCCIT was directed to ensure representation by coordinating with the PCCIT in whose jurisdiction the NCLT bench is located. This assumes importance in view of the fact that in case of many NCLT benches, a single bench covers the territorial jurisdiction of more than one Pr.CCIT region.
Central Government on being satisfied that there was a general practice of non-levy of additional duty of customs leviable under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as additional duty), on the Jute products
If the petitioner complies with Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the goods detained shall be released to them forthwith.
Arihant Udyog Vs Arihant Udyog (CESTAT Mumbai) As per the activity the appellant is only carrying out affixation of brand on the tools i.e. spanner by embossing/ engraving. This process alone does not amount to manufacture. As regards other processes which are carried out by the job workers, it prima facie appears that the independent […]
