The controversy revolves around the word ‘derived’ and the word ‘industrial undertaking’. The question is whether the interest paid on delayed payments form part of profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking?
Calcutta High Court held that cenvat credit of service tax paid to the commission agent is available, as the commission so paid is included in the assessable value of the final product.
Bombay High Court held that mere change of view by the department, the respondent could not have been said to have either mis-declared or suppressed facts in classifying its goods at the time of its import and hence extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment cannot be done against a dead Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Ganpat Pannalal Vs State Bank of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Conclusion: In the said case, the Hon’ble High Court while remanding the case to the Tribunal observed that the Tribunal under Section 22(1)(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 was competent to restore the Securitization Application by imposition of reasonable cost […]
Inspection/Search by Assistant Commissioner (ST) is valid on basis of authorization by Chief Commissioner under section 2(91) of the GST Act
Pratibha-Mosinzhstroi Consortium Vs Commissioner of CGST (Delhi High Court) High Court held that Impugned order cannot cancelling GST Registration of Appellant be sustained for the following reasons which proves that entire Proceedings was Legally Flawed (i) Firstly, the SCN dated 08.07.2021 gave no clue whatsoever, as to what was the infraction committed by the petitioner-consortium, […]
Mere submission of emails & form 16A, do not, in any way, prove that there existed any relationship of employer employee between parties
Considering the fact that the prosecution could not point out as to how much amount is misappropriated under the Input Tax Credit and that material part of investigation is not done, more particularly, when the GST Officer has not lodged any complaint or FIR against the applicant for any misappropriation of the Government funds or State Exchequer.
Income from supply of CAS and middleware products to indian customers, does not fall under ‘royalty’ as defined under Section 9(l)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Article 12(3) of India- Swiss DTAA.
