In other words, the test would be: Does an ATM fulfil the functions of a Computer in the business activity of an assessee? Is it a tool of his trade with which it carries on his business?
Explore Angalakshmi Spinning Mill vs ITO ITAT Chennai case. ITAT allows spare parts replacement as revenue expenditure. Full text of ITAT Chennai order.
Manibhadra Securities Services P.Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) he assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged in the business of trading of Shares and Securities. The assessee in the year under consideration has received the Loan to the tune of Rs. 4,08,01,000/-from M/s Ken Securities Limited. The assessee has repay […]
Keshav Kanshkar A Class Electrical Contractor Vs Principal Secretary Department of Energy (Madhya Pradesh High Court) ‘Precedent’, refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar issues. ‘Precedent’, is incorporated into the doctrine of ‘stare decisis’, and requires courts to apply the law […]
Bhartiya City Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) A conspectus of Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, makes it clear that the statute visualizes the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings to be wholly distinct and independent of each other. While the Assessing Officer may be justified in making estimated disallowance in quantum […]
It is clarified in respect of normal rice that -Rice (5% and 25%) is already exempted as it is not broken rice but normal rice with permissible limits of broken rice as per standards. However, it will carry 20% duty as per notification
(1) These rules may be called the Legal Metrology (General) Amendment Rules, 2022. (2) They shall come into force from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
Reserve Bank of India approved 42 reporting entities for authentication under Aadhaar Act for section 11A of Money-laundering Act.
Late Smt. Bhanuben Dhanji Shah Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The brief facts of the case pertaining to the issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to submit proof with regard to cost of improvement claim of Rs.81,775, with supporting bills, date of incurring such expenditure, […]
In the present case, admittedly the whole of the service was provided outside India and received outside India, therefore, even in terms of the said rule, the service tax is not leviable on the Business Exhibition Service received by the appellant which was performed outside India hence not taxable in the hands of the appellant.
