Shri Sanmathi Ambanna Vs JCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In penalty proceedings, the assessee, inter alia, submitted that the transactions in question cannot be strictly construed as loan but rather are in the nature of gifts from his father-in-law Shri. G. P. Padmakumar because of the fact that the person giving the money and the person accepting […]
Citi Centre Premises Co-Op. Society Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The issue in dispute in that case as per the Para reproduced from the Tribunal’s order above is regarding rent received from Reliance Telecom and in that case also, the assessee claimed a deduction u/s. 24 (a) of Rs. 1.65 Lakhs being 30% of such […]
In re Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (GST AAR Rajasthan) Central Government by way of Notification No. 50/2018 (Central Tax) dated 13.09.2018 appointed the 1st day of October, 2018, as the date on which the provisions of section 51 of the said Act shall come into force with respect to persons specified under […]
The service supplied by the Respondent under the Marketing Services Agreement dated 1 December 2012 constitutes a mixed supply of Services falling under the Heading Research and Development services having SAC 9981, under the Heading Other professional, technical and business services bearing SAC 9983, and under the Heading other miscellaneous services bearing SAC 9997.
Cengres Tiles Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The Gujarat High Court has held that only after the notice is served under Section 46 of the CGST Act and the assessment is done by the proper officer under Section 62, can the goods and the bank accounts of the taxable person be attached […]
Shree Shiv Vankeshawar Educational & Social Welfare Trust Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Admittedly the assessee has received a donation of INR 16265000/– from 1038 individuals and ld CIT (A) has noted that same is credited to the income and expenditure account of the assessee, However ld AO has noted that same is credited as Corpus […]
Assessee had incurred only office expenditure and no expenditure relating to transportation of goods such as loading, unloading charge etc., has been debited, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee actually engaged himself not in the transportation business, but only facilitating or arranging transportation for various parties and he is a mere lorry booking agent. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the assessee cannot be held as the person responsible for deduction of tax at source and to the facts of the case the provisions under section 194C of the Act have no application.
The Lok Sabha on 4th July 2019 passed the Aadhaar (Amendment) Bill 2019, which seeks to replace Ordinance brought by the Centre last March. With over 122 crore Aadhaar numbers having been issued and with the widespread use of Aadhaar as a proof of identity for various purposes by the Government of India, State Governments […]
ACIT Vs Ashwin S. Bhalekar Beamon Chambers (ITAT Mumbai) Claim of the assessee that extinguishment of rights in the capital asset is a transfer of capital asset and capital gains and consequent allowance of claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act. The facts clearly show that the extinguishment of assessee’s right in Flat […]
M/s. Gillette India Limited Vs Delhi Development Authority (Delhi High Court) It is well settled that shares of a company are a separate asset wholly distinct from the assets held by the company. In the present case, there was dilution of the share capital of TGC as well as transfer of shares held by the […]
