The loss due to foreign exchange fluctuation in foreign currency transactions in derivatives has to be considered on the last date of account year and it is deductible under section 37(1) and could not be considered as a notional loss.
It is alleged by the petitioner that though he has attempted to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 within the time, he was not able to do so on account of some system error. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions so as to enable him to take credit of the input tax available to him at the time of migration.
Milind Aggarwal Vs ICAI (Delhi High Court) The dispute relates to the result declared by the respondent-institute. The appellants claim that they had cleared Group I/II as per the result circulated through Whatsapp messages and uploaded on Facebook. They rely on the screenshots. The appellants however accept that as per result uploaded on the official […]
Whether the petitioner is correct in contending that he had already suffered the deduction of tax, the mere fact that the deductee did not deposit such tax with the Government revenue could not permit the Income tax Department to recover such amount from the petitioner.
One of the most fundamental bases amongst the other important considerations is that if new materials or documents come to light, the assessee’s income can be revisited and additional amounts brought to tax.
M/s. Supernova System Private Limited Vs. CCIT (Gujarat High Court) CBDT circular issued on 23.12.2014 prescribes compounding fees for offense under section 276C(1) at 100% of the amount sought to be evaded. This para also starts with an expression ‘Section 276C(1)- Wilful attempt to evade tax etc.’ The title of this para thus, is taken […]
When assessee did not receive any amount from its clients, on which services tax was payable, then, the amount claimed by the assessee being unpaid service tax as its liability could not be disallowed under section 43B, as liability to pay service tax in respect of consideration would arise only upon the assessee receiving funds and not otherwise.
The petitioners cannot be allowed to make separate entry when frooti is covered within the specific entry and residuary entry cannot be resorted into. In the considered opinion of this Court, both the authorities are absolutely justified in holding that frooti is a product covered by Entry 14 of Schedule II of the Chhattisgarh Entry Tax Act, 1976.
It is hard to notice the thickness, seal, embossment or any other identification marks used to check the authenticity of identity card if the same is laminated to make it glossy and water proof. The lamination destroys the legality of an identity card for all intents and purposes since it becomes difficult to compare the signature therein with that in the Register.
Euro Pratik LE vs UOI (Bombay High Court ) Case Summary The Petitioner is a wholesaler, importer and distributor of decorative sheets, which are used for furniture manufacturing. The petitioner was not registered under central laws in Pre-GST regime. As per section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’) r.w. […]
