HC ruled in favor of assessee by directing department to process Input Tax Credit claim that were previously rejected solely on the ground of inadvertent error.
Kerala High Court held that where there is no liability to deduct TDS, the mere fact that TDS was so deducted and paid to the Income Tax Department belatedly, cannot give rise to a claim for interest under sub-section (1A) of Section 201 of the Income Tax Act.
Akums Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Uttarakhand High Court) Whether the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand in holding that the revisionist is not entitled to reduce the levy of Central Sales Tax @ 1% for the financial year 2010-11 onwards) after the Capital Investment of Plant and Machinery, having […]
Sayar Cars Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Commercial Taxes Building (Madras High Court) It is an admitted position that none of the assessment orders or, for the matter, the show cause notices, reveal any application of mind to the aspect of wilful suppression. The officer merely proceeds on the fact that there was a difference […]
Prism Cement-Unit II Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Madhya Pradesh High Court) A bare reading of the expression “Business” u/S.2(d) of M.P. VAT Act, 2002 reveals that tax is leviable inter alia on the event of manufacturer whether or not such event is carried on with motive to make gain or profit and whether or […]
HC granted major relief to contractors by staying the coercive steps against the contractors and ordered the State GST department to abide by its circular, Finance Department vide Office memorandum No. FIN-CTI-TAX-0045-2017/38535/F dated December 10, 2018 to address the problems with works contracts brought on by the change from VAT to GST tax system
Madras High Court held that DGFT has powers to only clarify the doubts raised as to the interpretation of Policy and doesnt have powers to amend the FTP policy. Accordingly, 100% EOU eligible for benefits of availing SHIS.
A conjoint reading of sub Section (1) (b) & (2) of Section 50 of Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 makes it abundantly clear that it is wide enough to authorize and empower Director or Additional Director to issue a summons to a person.
In the present case service tax was not applicable and that no demand of service tax has ever been raised by concerned department. Consequently, retention of aforesaid security money deposited by petitioner is per se not justified.
Petition is disposed of with direction to Bhopal Development Authority to reconsider question of levy of GST on sale of developed plots to petitioners
