ACIT Vs Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Chandigarh) Where sufficient own interest free funds are available with the assessee, the presumption arises that the assessee had utilised those funds for the purpose of making interest free non business advances. Thus in very clear terms the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hero Cycles […]
Assessee did not disclose income voluntarily but it was disclosed in pursuance to survey conducted under section 133A. Had there not been survey, the assessee would not have offered such undisclosed income, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was correctly levied by AO.
ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Supreme Court) The input credit is in nature of benefit/ concession extended to dealer under the statutory scheme. The concession can be received by the beneficiary only as per the scheme of the Statute. Reference is made to judgment of this Court in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. […]
M/s Deepak Spinners Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) We note that the issue under consideration whether the subsidy received under TUF scheme is a capital receipt or revenue receipt. The ld. CIT(A) treated it as part of fixed assets and held that said subsidy should be reduced from the cost of fixed assets. Held by […]
Shri Anil Khandelwal Vs ITO (ITAT Indor) Once the condition of further proviso of Section 194C(3) of the Act are satisfied, the liability of the payee to deduct tax at source would cease. Examining the facts of the instant appeal we find that the assessee received Form 15I from the truck owner namely Shri Kishorilal Birla […]
Rajat Kumar Mehra Vs CPIO (CIC Delhi) The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant has sought his raw marks and scaling record. However, the CPIO vide letter dated 28.07.2017 incorrectly denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act stating that the answer […]
In the instant case, the entire procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act was followed, only price was fixed upon a negotiated settlement. Therefore, in view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), we hold that the acquisition of the urban agricultural land was a compulsory acquisition and the same would be entitled to the benefit enumerated in section 10(37) of the I.T.Act. It is ordered accordingly.
In re Ms. House of Marigold (GST AAR Gujarat)The product Marigold Butterfly Bridal with Watch and similar jewellery products containing watch supplied by M/s. House of Marigold are classifiable under Heading 9101.
In re Pragathi Enterprises (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh) Applicant has sough advance ruling on following issues- 1. What is the rate of GST applicable on tobacco leaves procured at tobacco auction platforms or directly from farmers, which are cured and dried by farmers themselves? 2. If the applicant purchases tobacco leaves form other dealers who […]
In re Sanghamitra Constructions (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh) Since the applicant withdrew the application before personal hearing, the same is dismissed. Accordingly, the application disposed off. FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH Note: Under Section 100 of the APGST Act’2017, an appeal against this ruling lies before the appellate authority […]
