Goregaon Sports Club Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) It is one of those blatant cases of breach of principles of natural justice and total non application of mind. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer is referring to a show cause notice dated 12th April 2021 by which the DAO proposed modification in returned income […]
Jai Venktesh Concast Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Calcutta High Court) In this matter, petitioner has challenged the impugned action of the respondents blocking credit ledger of the petitioner by order dated 24th November, 2020. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of Rule 86A(3) of the West Bengal […]
Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Banagalore) Ld. TPO thus applied the TNMM as the MAM and determined ALP which resulted in adjustment of Rs. 10,19,77,372/- to the Manufacturing Segment. The assessee filed objection before the DRP agains the proposed adjustment. However the DRP upheld the order of Ld. TPO by observing that in […]
Section 6(2)(a) of the CGST Act mandates that where any proper officer under the CGST Act issues an order, he shall also issue an order under the SGST Act or the UTGST Act as authorized under those Acts, as the case may be, under intimation to the jurisdictional officer of the State tax or the Union territory Tax. Clause (2) of sub section (2) of Section 6 of the CGST Act/UPGST Act mandates that where a proper officer under the SGST Act or the UTGST Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject-matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under the CGST Act on the same subject-matter.
CIT-LTU Vs Lakshmi General Finance Ltd (Merged with Sundaram Finance Limited) (Madras High Court) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on the windmills even though the wind mills had not generated any electricity during the […]
In absence of there being any payment of rent or even deemed rent by the Respondents to OPTCL there was no obligation under Section 194-I of the IT Act to deduct TDS from the wheeling charges paid to OPTCL.
In re Rajasekhar Reddy Tummuru (GST AAR Telangana) Questions raised: Whether the person registered in the State of Telangana who is in possession of an immovable property in the State of Maharashtra is required to be registered in the State of Maharashtra for provision of service related to Renting of Immovable property? Held by AAR Telangana: As […]
In re Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board (GST AAR Telangana) The applicant M/s. Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board is making payments to the contractors in equated yearly installment manner where in such equated yearly installment consists of both principal amount and interest on such delayed payment. The applicant is desirous ascertaining […]
In re Agro Tech Foods Limited (GST AAR Telangana) What would be the correct HSN classification and consequently rate of GST applicable on ‘Ready to Eat’ popcorn sold in retail packages? HSN classification is ‘1904’ and the rate of tax is 9% SGST & CGST each. FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, […]
In re Poli Vasudeva Reddy (GST AAR Telangana) Section 95(c) defines applicant as any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under this Act. And Section 95(a) enumerates that a Advance Ruling needs decision for providing in relation to supply of goods or services undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. In the […]
