Follow Us:

Commission paid for referring names of potential customers is allowable

January 13, 2020 1974 Views 0 comment Print

It is a settled principle of law that commission paid to persons for referring names of customers is allowable u/s. 37 of the Act for introducing potential customers to the assessee falls within the ambit of service.

‘Arogya Sanjeevani Policy’ allowed to be marketed by Point of Sales

January 13, 2020 945 Views 0 comment Print

Number of such products that can be filed as PoS product is capped at three (3) per insurance company. In addition to these three insurance products, Standard Health Insurance Product— AROGYA SANJEEVANI POLICY is also allowed to be marketed by Point of Sales.

HC explains meaning of shell companies; Without hearing a company cannot be declared as shell company

January 13, 2020 8442 Views 0 comment Print

Assam Company India Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court) What can be deduced is that though a shell company is defined in other jurisdictions, in India there is no statutory definition of a shell company. However, in popular parlance as well as from the perspective of the Government and its agencies, […]

Section 54/54F Deduction cannot be denied for delay in construction by developer

January 12, 2020 4818 Views 1 comment Print

The only issue in the appeal is the denial of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54 and 54F of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that, firstly, the assessee has earned capital gain and has invested the same in purchase of a residential plot; secondly, the assessee has made a total investment of Rs.63,03,005/- which is more than the exemption of Rs.52,90,424/- claimed by her

Students Contribution for Building Development Fund is capital receipt

January 10, 2020 7692 Views 0 comment Print

Vidya Bharati Society for Education & Scientific Advancement Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) Merely because the contributions from students were collected under the nomenclature of development fee cannot ipso facto lead to conclusion that it cannot be considered to be corpus contribution. It is true that in terms of section 12(1) read with section 11(1)(d) of […]

Release goods on deposit of requisite amount & bank guarantee: HC

January 10, 2020 732 Views 0 comment Print

we are inclined to pass an interim order for the release of the goods and the vehicles. We direct the writ ­applicant to deposit an amount of Rs.50,40,972/­ towards the tax with the respondent no.2 and the balance amount of Rs.50,40,972/­ towards the penalty shall be in the form of a bank guarantee of any nationalized bank. On deposit of the requisite amount and the bank guarantee, the authority concerned shall release the goods and the vehicles forthwith.

Collection of various types of fee prescribed in GSPR-2018 under Schedule II

January 10, 2020 4698 Views 0 comment Print

Till necessary provisions are made in Finacle/CSI for collection of various types of fee/charges on services, following process should be adopted by all concerned. (i) Collection of various types of fee to be collected in CSI — SAP through F-02/FB50

Performance Bonus not forms part of salary for HRA calculation

January 10, 2020 7306 Views 0 comment Print

Clause (h) of Rule 2A specifically provides that ‘salary’ includes dearness allowance, if the terms of employment so provede, but excludes all other allowances and perquisites. Accordingly, the performance bonus received by the appellant did not form part of ‘salary’ for the purposes of computing exemption u/s 10(13A) of the Act.

HC quashes Order for Tax & penalty passed without Opportunity | Section 75 | CGST Act 2017

January 9, 2020 4014 Views 0 comment Print

Serajuddin and Co. Vs Union of India (Orissa High Court) A perusal of sub-section 4 of the Section 75 of  CGST Act 2017 makes it clear that whenever an assessee, chargeable with tax and penalty makes a request in writing for opportunity of hearing, such an opportunity should be granted to him. Here, admittedly though […]

Guidelines for submission of Cash/Non-Cash documents at Trade Marks Registry

January 9, 2020 858 Views 0 comment Print

It has been brought to the notice of the under signed that the documents submitted at the counter of the Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai were not classified properly due to which the documents were not get scanned and digitized as required and also not able to properly distributed in the respective sections for necessary action.

Search Post by Date
April 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930