Since CGST Act, 2017 came in force with effect from 1-7-2017, contract work for which agreements were executed prior to 1-7-2017, GST would not be imposed on same and 2 per cent VAT alone was applicable
The assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of matching material for women clothing and she was also running a tailoring centre. For the year under consideration she declared total income of Rs. 1,33,900/- and net agricultural income of Rs. 52,450/-.
Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to reopen the portal immediately enabling the Petitioner Company to revises the filed FORM TRAN-1, so that the Electronic Credit Ledger is updated with the revised input credit.
It was held that The State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh is entitled for income tax exemption under Section 10(23A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1-11-2000 (from the date of constitution of the Council).
No addition can be made solely on the basis of a retracted statement made during the survey operation, particularly, when proper justification for retraction was also offered.
A party cannot be called upon to perform an impossible Act i.e. to comply with a provision not in force at the relevant time but introduced later by retrospective amendment. S. 40(a)(i) dis allowance can be made only if the royalty falls under Explanation 2 to s. 9(1)(vi) but not if it falls under Explanation 6 to s. 9(1)(vi)
Petitioner is a Chartered Accountant against whom information within the meaning of Rule 7 of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigation of Professional and other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 was provided by Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Principal CIT Vs Manoj Hora (Delhi High Court) The text of section 132(4), clarifies that the presumption arises in the case of the searched party. In case the statements by the party whose premises are searched, or to be attributed to a third party – as in the case of the assessee, there has to […]
Salora International Ltd. Vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) A plain and textual reading of Section 275(1A) clarifies that the expiry of six months prescribed is to be reckoned from the date of completion of proceedings or from the end of the month in which the order of the CIT(A) or as the case may be […]
Iqra Roadways (India) Vs. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) In the instant case since the factual disputed issues are involved and further that the penalty proceedings are already initiated, as intimated by the counsel for the State, therefore, it would be proper in the interest of justice that the seized goods be released in favor of the petitioners on the payment of an amount of Rs. 1,11,564/- (as indicated in the show cause notice dated 26.9.2017).
