ACIT Vs M/s Calcutta Export Co. (ITAT Kolkata) The Revenue has failed to place on record even a single document throwing light towards the fact that the payee herein has rendered any of its services in India thereby making it liable to be assessed u/s 9 r.w.s 5 of the Act. The assessee’s payee has […]
Since trade advances obtained by assessee from its sister concern were in the nature of commercial transactions, would not fall within the ambit of the word ‘advance’ in section 2(22)(e).
CIT (E) Vs M/s The Institute of Correctional Administration (Punjab and Haryana HC) The grievance of the appellant is regarding grant of registration to the respondent under Section 12-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is a society constituted by the Government for imparting training to various officers/officials involved in the criminal justice […]
Assuming that the brokers may have done some manipulation but the assessee cannot be held liable for the Act of the brokers when the entire transactions have been done through banking channels duly recorded in the Demant accounts with a Government depository and traded on the stock exchange.
We have perused the relevant documents, namely, Invoice, Goods receipt, E-way Bills etc., which are enclosed as Annexures to the writ petition and found that the E-way bill under the UPGST Act has been downloaded by the petitioner, much before the detention and seizure of the goods and the vehicle, disclosing all the necessary informations.
Remark Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The petitioners are registered dealers under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and are engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of wheat flour, meslin flour, cereal flours etc. The GST authorities had conducted a search at the business premises of […]
M/s. K.V. Joseph & Sons Engineering Contractors Vs ACIT (ITAT Cochin) In this case the assessee paid Rs. 200 lakhs as an advance payment to Mr. K.J. Paul to carry out sub contract work of road at Edapally, High Court. The plea of the assessee is that it was incurred for the purpose of business. […]
Once the service being provided by the appellant is covered under ‘outdoor catering’ service in terms of the Notifications issued under the CGST Act, 2017 and the GGST Act, 2017, the category under which the license has been issued to the appellant under the Food Safety and Standards Act would not make any difference on the taxability of the service provided by the appellant. For the same reasons, the provisions of Factories Act, 1948 are also not relevant to determine the nature of service provided by the appellant.
The NBFC Ombudsman is a senior official appointed by the Reserve Bank of India to redress customer complaints against NBFCs for deficiency in certain services covered under the grounds of complaint specified under Clause 8 of the Scheme.
Where show cause notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) did not specify charge against assessee as to whether it was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, levy of penalty could no be sustained.
