ONGC Tripura Power Company Ltd. Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court) In a significant legal victory for electricity-generating companies, the Tripura High Court has held State Governments cannot levy electricity duty on inter-State sale of electricity. ONGC Tripura Corporation Ltd had challenged the provisions of the Tripura Electricity Duty Act, 2019 (TEDA) by a […]
Under section 83 of the MGST Act, it is the Commissioner which has the competence to carry out provisional attachment of property including bank account subject to fulfillment of the preconditions of section 83.
CIT Vs Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (Madras High court) It is abundantly clear from Sub-Section (2) of Section 80IA that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA has the option to choose the initial/first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of […]
CIT Vs M. Ranjan Rao (Madras High Court) The Supreme Court in Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd vs. CIT [ 1964] 53 ITR 283 has brought out a dichotomy between receipt of compensation by an assessee for loss of agency and receipt of compensation attributable to the negative/restrictive covenant. If the compensation is received for […]
Poothrikka Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs ITO (Kerala High Court) The question which is pending for adjudication before the appellate authority is whether the petitioners who are co-operative Societies are entitled for deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer has denied the benefit of Section 80 (P) of the […]
High Court expresses its concern that practising advocates should not have to face harassment on account of the Department issuing notices calling upon them to pay service tax/GST when they are exempted from doing so, and in the process also having to prove they are practising advocates.
It is the case of the petitioners that they have been appointed as Statutory Branch Auditors by the erstwhile Allahabad Bank, which has now been merged into Indian Bank.
Utkal Moulders Vs State of Orissa (Orissa High Court) In the considered view of the Court, the legal position, as explained in Hindustan Sugar Mills and others v. State of Rajasthan and others (supra) and the State of Karnataka and another v. Bangalore Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. (supra) supports the case of the Petitioner is […]
Where the sale transaction is on principal to principal basis, merely because a discount was passed by the manufacturer to the assessee, that may not be construed as commission and therefore, it cannot be the subject matter of levy of service tax.
AO did conduct an enquiry, called for details, the details were produced and thereafter, the assessment was completed. Therefore, the finding of the PCIT was erroneous, consequently, assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not sustainable. Also, there was no requirement in law to maintain separate books of account for claiming deduction under section 10A. However, since the deductions under these sections were available only to the eligible units, AO might call for such details or information pertaining to different units to verify the claim and quantum of exemption, if so required.
