Where dis allowance was made by revenue under section 14A in respect of interest and administrative expenses, it was made clear that where assessee had its own surplus fund, then no question of any estimation of expenditure under rule 8D would arise. Thus, revenue was not justified in disallowing interest and administrative expenses, when the same was made out of interest free fund.
The Writ Petitioner prays for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of Order-in-Original dated 21.04.2017 passed by the respondent and quashing of the same as arbitrary and illegal.
The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 21stDecember, 2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of I ncome Tax (PCIT) rejecting the Petitioners application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) on the ground of limitation.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the notice dated 31-3-2017 issued by the respondent-Income Tax Officer under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for assessment year 2010-11.
JCB India Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court upheld the Constitutional validity of One Year Limitation for GST Transitional Credit under Section 140(3)(iv) of the CGST Act, 2017. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT / ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:- 1. All these petitions were heard together and are being disposed […]
Satyendra Goods Transport Corp. Vs State of U.P. & ors. (Allahabad High Court) It has been held that on the relevant date i.e. 4 Dec. 2017 when the vehicle in question was intercepted, the ‘Government’ referred in Rule 138 of the C.G.S.T. Rules 2017, which was the Central Government, had not developed and approved any […]
M/s Teesta Distribution Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) Therefore, the writ petition is disposed with the following directions: (I) Rule 56(20A)(iii)(d) of the Kerala State GST Rules is struck down holding that the State has no legislative competence to formulate such Rule. (II) The challenge to the vires of other Rules is negatived. […]
While hearing the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s Prasidh Leasing Limited, the Delhi High Court ruled that Provisions of Deemed Dividend applicable when Assessee diverted Advance amount received for procuring import licenses for purchase of shares under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Any lease or letting out of a building, including commercial, industrial or residential complex for business, either wholly or partly is a supply of service. It is settled law that such provisions in a taxing statute would have to be read together and harmoniously in order to understand the nature of the levy, the object and purpose of its imposition.
Proactive Plast (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Rule 138 of the Rules framed under the Central G.S.T. provides that till such time E-Way bill system is developed and approved by the Council, the Government by notification may specify the documents which are to be carried with the consignment of goods. In […]
