Petitioner requests to extend the time period for filing of GST Tran-1 because his application was not entertained on the last date i.e. 27.12.2017 and he has filed his complete application for necessary transactional credit.
The power of detention contemplated under Section 129 of the SGST Act can be exercised only in respect of goods which are liable to be confiscated under Section 130 of the SGST Act; that there is no taxable supply when goods are transported on delivery chalans
Punjab & Haryana High Court upholds ITAT decision deleting share transaction addition in Prem Pal Gandhi case; finds no substantial question of law.
M/s. Parisons Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Kerala High Court) The appeal arises from a Clarification Order issued under Section 94 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘KVAT Act’ for short). The appellant/dealer, inter alia, is engaged in the manufacture of ‘bakery shortening’. The clarification sought for was the […]
Admittedly, the mobile phone and charger are sold as part of a composite package. The primary intent of the contract appears to be the sale of the mobile phone and the supply of the charger at best collateral or connected to the sale of the mobile phone.
Admittedly,Company is not carrying out any businesss and its bank account has not been operated for over three years, petitioner ought to be provided benefit of CODS – 2018.
The Kerala High Court, in M/S Indus Towers Limited Vs. The Assistant State Tax Officer, held that the power of detention contemplated under Section 129 of the SGST Act can be exercised only in respect of goods which are liable to be confiscated under Section 130 of the SGST Act.
Kakali Bera Vs. Union of India (Calcutta High Court) Tender process initiated by the tender notice dated April 27, 2017 is under challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioners were admittedly found to be technically qualified and their financial bids were opened. At the initial stage of the financial bid, the petitioners were declared […]
Where the value of stock shown to bank for purpose of availing of higher credit facility was based on market rate and not at cost price but there was no difference in quantitative details, no addition under section 69B could be made.
Pr. CIT Vs Modern Threads (I) Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court) High Court held that loan which was taken was capital investment and always treated in the capital account as liability and if it is so, it will naturally go as wiping out the capital liability. Income which could be taxed under section 28(iv) must not […]
