In re Sumeru Infra Solution (GST AAR Madhya Pradesh) This Authority is of the view that based on the detailed reading and understanding of Section 97 of the CGST Act, an application for Advance Ruling can only be made to determine the ‘admissibility of input tax credit (ITC)‘ on any goods or services or both. […]
ADP Private Ltd. Vs CIT (ITAT Hyderabad) With regard to the working capital adjustment, it is the case of the assessee that the provision of bad and doubtful debts should be considered as operating expenses while computing the PLI. He submitted that the transactions can be considered as a comparable only after making adjustments to eliminate […]
Lucknow CA Tax Practioners’ Association has made a Requested to FM that the due date for filing of ITRs for all the taxpayers for AY 2020-21 be extended to 31st March, 2021 and the due date for filing the tax audit report also be extended to 28th February, 2021 and further requested to extend the […]
Service of the show cause notice at a wrong E-mail address is neither contemplated under the Act nor can it be deemed to be a proper service under the Act. As no show cause notice has ever been served, the petitioner never had any occasion to file its reply and thereafter not serving a copy of the reasoned order quantifying the demand is clearly erroneous.
State Bank of India Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) In our considered view the facts in the case at hand being similar to the facts in the case of ASREC (India) Limited (Supra) that decision would squarely be applicable to the facts of this case that if any Central statute creates priority of […]
Sara Sae P Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The first issue is regarding the levy of service tax on the commission received from foreign companies has recently been decided against the Revenue by this Bench in M/s Involute Engineering Pvt. Ltd.5, both with regard to the period prior to […]
On review of the verification requests in terms of rule 6 of CAROTAR 2020, being received by the FTA Cell in the Board, it is observed that significant number of such requests have to be returned on account of being deficient, thus leading to delay in verification process and adversely impacting trade facilitation.
Where the assessee company demolished the existing structure of building which was situated on the leasehold land, for constructing a new factory, and since there was no other asset in the block of assets, therefore, written down value of the said building claimed as short-term capital loss, was rightly allowed by Commissioner (Appeals).
Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Before issuance of certificates under section 197 of the Act, the same must be preceded by an order. That order must disclose reasons and is an order passed in exercise of quasi-judicial powers. Such an order can be assailed in revision under section 264 of the […]
Metenere Ltd. Vs. Union Of India (Allahabad High Court) Although in terms of the provisions of Section 35 (6), the unaccounted goods are ‘deemed to be supplied’ however, determination and quantification of the tax on the said ‘deemed supply’ has to be done in accordance with Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act. A […]
