ITAT Bangalore rules non-resident software payment not royalty. Section 195 not applicable. Full text and analysis of Altisource vs. ACIT case.
K. Basheer Vs C.K. Usman Koya (High Court Kerala) It is also to be noted in this context that the offence u/s.138 of the Act is an offence which would be attracted on the ingredients above referred being satisfied. The statute also provides a presumption in favour of the holder which cannot be rendered otiose. […]
Navneet R. Jhanwar Vs State Tax Officer and others (Jammu and Kashmir High Court) Admittedly, the claim for refund was initially sought to be rejected by respondent No.1 on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Section 54 of the Act provides a period of two years for making an application for refund from […]
Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We find, the AO, in the instant case, disallowed depreciation on goodwill on the ground that the assessee has not become the sole logistic service provider to IBM India, the value of workforce does not facilitate the smooth carrying on of the business of the assessee and […]
Kaamdaa Impex Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) Refund not deniable for delay in filing when vital documents seized by DRI: The Madras High Court has held that the application for refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) cannot be rejected based on the limitation period as prescribed under the relevant notification when the vital […]
UHDE India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai) We find that the assessee has accumulated cost as well as revenue under these projects in the Balance Sheet by following completed contract method. The revenue has accepted such accumulation during AYs 2004-05 & 2005-06 and this is the third year of accumulation […]
Delhi Call Centre Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The only objection to the allowance of depreciation by the Lower Authorities is that the assessee could not produce copy of purchase invoice of the vehicle. It is undisputed that the Department has allowed interest on vehicle loan as well as has also allowed the expenditure […]
KEC International Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT New Delhi) amount as was prayed to be refunded is admittedly an amount other than the duty or interest which is the subject matter of refund under Section 11 B. Keeping in view the same, to my opinion Section 11B should not have been […]
It was held that when an Institute run by a State Government and associated in implementation of various welfare schemes of the Government, the allegations of suppression of facts or wilful misstatement can be nothing but absurd.
Neeraj Ramkumar Tiwari Vs State Of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) On 03.09.2020, the petitioner filed Criminal Misc.Application No.12831 of 2020 for bail under Section 439. However, pending the bail application, statutory period of 60 days for registering the complaint under the provisions of the GST Act had expired and therefore, on 28.09.2020, the petitioner preferred […]
