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 […]
Perfect Cargo and Logistics Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) The contention of the appellant is that the G-Card holder acted strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued in the Circular dated April 8, 2010. According to the appellant, the G-Card holder exercised due diligence by procuring all independent and authentic documents. 39. As noticed […]
Kiran Enterprise Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court) Before we formulate our decision in respect of the question whether Section 5 qua Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act would apply for purpose of condoning the delay in filing the petitioner‟s petition under Section 161 of the TSGST Act, let us revisit the provisions of […]
Shiv Dayal Singh Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) It is clear that once the operator/owner of the vehicle informs regarding surrender of registration certificate, a burden is cast upon the Taxation Officer to charge the tax and the additional tax only on being convinced that the vehicle is found plying as no tax […]
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) OTS E-Solutions Pvt. Ltd.: From the perusal of the records it can be seen that OTS E-Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was held as not comparable in subsequent assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 by the Tribunal. The functional dissimilarity is apparent on record and there are no changes […]
Asahi India Glass Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Petitioner has been denied ‘C’ forms on the ground that natural gas purchased by it in the course of inter-state sale is used for manufacturing of float glass which is not covered by the definition of goods under section 2(d) of the CST Act. […]
SRF Limited Vs Commissioner of VAT (Delhi High Court) Petitioner approached DVAT Department, Delhi vide letter dated 22-04-2018 to seek permission to amend the revised return so as to enable it to download Forms F for the Quarter ending 31-03-2016. He points out that October, 2019 was written by the petitioner, the impugned order was […]
