EMC Software & Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (ITAT Banglore) The assessee seeks inclusion of T2T2 India Ltd. The Ld. A.R. submitted that this company is functionally comparable company. The TPO/DRP has rejected the same only for the reason that the detail of Related Party Transactions (RPT) was not disclosed in the Annual Report. […]
Jain Shwetamber Murtipujak Sukrat Fund Kaoda Committee Vs. CIT (ITAT Indore) On perusal of the record we find that the assessee trust was incorporated in the year 1945 and even in the Permanent Account Number (PAN) allotted by the Income Tax Department the date of incorporation of the trust is 16.4.1945. The assessee has claimed […]
GMMCO Limited Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Madras High Court); The Madras High court held that is not possible to countenance the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 949 of 2020 that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Surya Roshni Ltd. -vs- Employees Provident Fund […]
DCIT Vs Manav Realty (ITAT Pune) It is evident from the reasons recorded by the AO that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was premised on the fact that the commencement took place at a date in variance with the one stated by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) has aptly recorded […]
Steel manufacturers can also claim Duty Drawback on steel supplied through their Service Centers/ Distributors/ Dealers/ Stock yards. Notification No. 35/2015-2020-DGFT dated 1st October, 2020 Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry Department of Commerce Directorate General of Foreign Trade Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi ******* Notification No. 35/2015-2020-DGFT Dated the 1st October, 2020 Subject: […]
In view of the prevailing situation due to Covid-19 pandemic and representation received from the Stock Exchanges, it has been decided to further extend the timelines for compliance with the regulatory requirements by the trading members / clearing members, mentioned in the SEBI circulars, as under:
Meenakshi Trendz through Its Partner Ratan Kumar Saraf Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Section 83 talks about the opinion which is necessary to be formed for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue. Any opinion of the authority to be formed is not subject to objective test. The language leaves […]
Sree Lakshmi Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) We have already examined the legal position with regard to validity of initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act de hors incriminating material found in the course of search which belong or relate to the assessee. Admittedly, no such incriminating material was found in respect of any of […]
Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively.
In re Yulu Bikes Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Karnataka) Renting of e-bikes/bicycles without operator cannot be classified under SAC 9973 – Leasing or rental services without operator and Sl.no. 17(viia) of Notification no. 11/2017 CT(R) dated 28th June 2017 as amended is not applicable to the instant case. Read AAAR Order- Renting of e-bikes/bicycles without […]
