Whether department is correct in charging service tax on various services provided to film distributors by assessee without charging any consideration.
The issue under consideration is whether the High Court was right in directing that pre-deposit was not required for entertaining an appeal before the DRAT as mandated by Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act).
In the given case, a batch of writ petitions are pending before the High Courts of Delhi, Bombay and Punjab and Haryana in which the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 read with Rule 126 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 and other cognate provisions, is under challenge.
The issue raised by the assessee that the HUF was not in existence when the assessment proceedings have been conducted and the Assessment Order has been passed on HUF and therefore, the entire proceedings are rendered null and void and it should be held that the Assessment Order is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The sole issue involved in this appeal of assessee is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.5,01,00,000/- made by AO u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on account of bogus share capital including share premium
As per the circular no. 723 dated 19.09.1995 states that where the provisions of Section 172 are to apply, the provisions of Section 194C and 195 relating to tax deduction at source are not applicable.
TAT see no reason to uphold the levy of penalty in the present case U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since the basis for levy of penalty, being cancellation of registration granted to the assessee U/s 12A of the Act and as a consequence treating its surplus and corpus donation as not exempt but taxable under the Act, has been quashed by the ITAT.
In the given case, the appeal is filed by revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The issue here is that as per assessing officer there is requirement for assesse to prove the source of funds in the hands of the receipts received by assessee.
If any operator of teer-counter has an obligation to get himself registered under the Meghalaya Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, he should be required to obtain necessary registration and make payment of due amount of GST.
High Court denied the grant of reliefs to the petitioner against the detention order passed under Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
