Pr. CIT Vs NTPC Sail Power Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Electricity is capable of abstraction, transmission, transfer, delivery, possession, consumption and use like any other movable property. Following the same logic, to deny the benefit of additional depreciation to a generating entity on the basis that electricity is not an ‘article’ or ‘thing’ […]
High Court of Madras in the matter of Commissioner of CGST v. M/s. Daejung Moparts Pvt. Ltd. [W.A.Nos.2127 and 2151 of 2019] dated 23.07.2019 dismissed the Letter Patent Appeal filed by the department and upheld the order of single bench, whereby assessee was directed to pay interest consequent to delay in filing of Return, only on net tax liability (after deduction of Input Tax Component).
Petitioner is seeking directions to respondents to refund late fee collected from him while filing Form GSTR-3B in his Cash Ledger in GST Portal so that he can utilise it for discharging his tax liabilities.
Times Global Broadcasting Company Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court) It is indisputable that by virtue of sub-sections (2A) and (2B) of Section 92CA, in case of an international transaction, the TPO would have an authority to examine any international transaction which comes to his notice during the proceedings, whether a […]
The writ petitioners have filed these applications for getting the transitional input tax credits, for which Form GST TRAN-I was filled up by them.
The Tribunal noticed that the assessee was holding 1.07% shares of sister concern whereas the partners of the assessee firm Shri Balbir Kumar and Shri Harsh Kumar were holding 6.64% and 6% shareholding respectively.
The petitioner’s grievance that the work of important Tribunal like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should not be allowed to suffer on account of shortage of administrative staff is perfectly legitimate, however, we do not find any lethargy on the part of the Department in not filing up said posts.
A perusal of Section 94 shows that there is no power conferred upon the Central Government to make any Rules or Notifications for extraterritorial events; or in other words, for services rendered and consumed beyond the “taxable territory” i.e. beyond India. Obviously, the Act itself is not applicable to the territories other than India and therefore the Executives cannot have any power to make Rules for territories beyond India.
M/s. Siddharth Enterprises Vs NODAL Officer (Gujarat High Court) Hon’ble High Court held that Transitional credit can’t be denied only because form Tran 1/ Tran 2 couldn’t not be filed. Requirement of filing of Trans 1 and Trans 2 returns is procedural in nature and not mandatory and therefore right of transitional credit can not […]
High Ground Enterprises Ltd Vs UOI (Bombay High Court) Petitioner has sought to question the refusal by the Officers of the DGGI, Mumbai to supply documents to the Petitioner seized by the officers and also sought a direction to the Respondents to hand over copies of the documents seized in January 2019 Petitioner, in the […]
