CIT Vs. Ms Flytxt Technology P. Ltd. (Kerala High Court) Admittedly, the assessee initially claimed the benefit of Section 10B which was allowed by the Assessing Officer. Only when the Commissioner was seized of the proceedings under Section 263, the assessee raised an alternative claim for the benefit of Section 10A. The Commissioner did not […]
Allahabad High Court on an application filed by CESTAT Bar Associationhas stayed the operation of the Notification dated 10-10-2017 providing for transfer of appeals from CESTAT Regional benches to the CESTAT bench at Delhi with the consent of the parties on the plea that such notification is without authority of law as the CESTAT cannot change the jurisdiction which is already carved out by the Union Cabinet and moreover, consent of parties does not confer jurisdiction.
Heard Mr.P. Rajkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Under the new tax regime, GST (comprising CGST, SGST and IGST) on works contracts for Government work was intially notified at 18 percent. This had resulted in representations from contractors of ongoing works for compensation by procuring entity for increased tax liability over and above the contracted value of work.
Preeti Mohan Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) The petitioner before this Court is a practicing advocate and she has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the ITO to allow her to file income tax returns for the assessment year 2017-18 either manually or through e-filing facility without insisting for production […]
On reading the provisions of section 221 conjointly with the definition of “tax” as detailed under section 2(43), the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the phraseology tax in arrears as envisaged in section 221 of the Act would not take within its realm the interest component.
Assessee’s contention that adding the entire amount of bogus purchases would give a completely distorted figure and the gross profit would be higher than the total turnover. Such bogus purchases were for off-setting the purchases from producers and agriculturists directly who would not have the billing facility. Only question seriously paused before us was, was the Tribunal justified in adopting the gross profit rate of 8% as against 25% adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals)?
It is an important aspect to be examined whether Recipient- Assessee has directly paid tax or has no liability of tax at all. Since this aspect was not examined by Assessing Authority, therefore, in our view, Tribunal has rightly remanded matter to Assessing Authority to examine this aspect.
Rule 8D is triggered only in a case where the AO is not satisfied with the deduction made by the Assessee. The reasons to believe assume and are predicated on the belief that the AO should not have accepted the Petitioner’s deduction as explained and justified, albeit should have applied Rule 8D. Thus, the view and opinion formed by the AO, while passing the original assessment orders is doubted as erroneous. This is obviously a case of change of opinion.
CIT Vs. M/s Gillette India Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court) Instant appeal is directed against order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and indisputably the tax effect as brought to our notice, is less than Rs. 20 lac. A Circular No. 21/2015 has been issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 10.12.2015 in exercise […]
