Due to disputes between the assessee with its earlier auditor and resignation thereof, the same (audited accounts) was filed before AO belatedly.
Notification No. 1/2018-Customs (ADD) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975(51 of 1975) read with rules 18, 20, 22 and 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995
Taking loan from closely held company to discharge the payment of salary is to be treated as a commercial transaction. We are not in agreement with the submissions of the ld. AR as the salary commitment is in the proprietary concern, in which, assessee is the sole owner and any loan taken from the closely held company wherein assessee is holding substantial interest will definitely attract provisions of section 2(22)(e).
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following amendments in each of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue),
GST being implemented in our country is a dual GST i.e. to say every supply attracting the levy will be leviable to both Central tax and State tax. So does this mean that if a taxpayer is aggrieved by any such transaction, he will have to approach both the authorities for exercising his right of appeal? The answer is a plain NO.
Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit should have been passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. However it has been the experience of many countries that when GST was introduced there has been a marked increase in inflation and the prices of the commodities.
The ITAT, Lucknow bench in M/s Maheshwari Flour Mills vs. JCIT, has held that expenses related to the fundamentals of the assessee’s business cannot be disallowed merely n ground that they were not vouched.
The ITAT bench comprising of Accountant Member T. S. Kapoor and Judicial Member Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not attract when assessee makes an Ineligible Claim.
In an assessee- favor ruling, the Cochin bench of ITAT said that the assessee, a primary agricultural credit society is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80P (2) of the Income Tax Act, with regard to interest received on deposits made by the assessee with sub treasury.
Clarification on MISP Guidelines 1. Creation of panel of insurers by insurance intermediary or MISP 2. Role and responsibilities of MISP vis-à-vis Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM’s)
