Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) In the given case the HC have reached to the conclusion that no tax is leviable under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the ocean freight for the services provided by a person located in a non-taxable territory by way of […]
Lucknow Development Authority Vs ACIT (ITAT Lucknow) 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Therefore, at the end ITAT approved to stay the outstanding demand for a period of six months from the date of this order or till disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier, provided the assessee deposits the above noted amounts within the […]
It is evident that the benefit of first proviso would be allowed only if the condition as stipulated in second proviso is satisfied. In other words, the stamp value on the date of agreement to sell shall be considered as full value of consideration only if the amount of consideration or part of such consideration was received by the assessee through banking channel on or before the date of agreement for transfer. This issue, therefore, needs detailed factual verification.
SPR & RG constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The issue under consideration is whether the reasons for reopening of assessment u/s 147 are justified? The reasons recorded for reopening are on the basis of the audited accounts of the assessee i.e., specifically perusal of Schedule 30 of the profit and loss account and […]
The issue under consideration is that, when two views are possible and A.O. adopt one of the view and passed his order accordingly. But that view is not acceptable by PCIT, in such case can PCIT adopt its one of the other views and call the order of A.O. the erroneous?
The issue involved is whether the appellants are liable to pay Service Tax on the rent received by them for allowing the harvesting contractors to use the Appellant’s bullock carts with tyres without any bullocks or driver for transporting the sugarcane to the sugar factories?
Lakhan Singh Chauhan and Company Vs Union of India and others (Madhya Pradesh HC) In the impugned order, there is no consideration to the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal regarding non-communication of the order to the petitioner and start of period of limitation from the date of communication or knowledge of the order. […]
In the given case, the issue under consideration is if the new property has been invested in the name of assessees husband, then in such case whether the exemption under Section 54F can be denied to the assessee or not?
In the instant case, the allegations are in respect of getting bogus firms registered under the GST Code and of preparing bogus invoices for the purpose of evading tax.
The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ proceeding is challenging the seizure as well as praying for release of the seized goods. A counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State reveals, inter alia, as follows :-
