Device Driven (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Kerala High Court) No TDS on commission paid to non-resident agent for effecting exports as it was not taxable under Income Tax Act Conclusion: Services rendered for effecting exports within India by assessee-company to foreign buyers would not attract income tax since the income was derived from the […]
The issue under consideration is whether Third Party Administrator (TPA) is required to deduct tax at source (TDS) on payments made to hospitals under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act?
High Court held that the allegation of mis-classification of goods cannot warrant detention of the goods during transit. If the officer feels that there have been misclassification of the goods, then a report to be prepared and sent to the Assessing Officer, who can consider the said report and objections at the time of finalising the assessment.
The issue under consideration is whether a TPA, was required to deduct tax at source on payments made to hospitals under Section 194J of the Act?
Malayalam Motors Pvt. Ltd Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) Facts of the case: The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of automobile sales. The Company filed GSTR-1 returns for the months of February 2020 to May 2020, due to the Covid pandemic, could not generate funds to make […]
Karur Vysya Bank Ltd Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Facts- Only matter involved is income received in advance in the nature of interest income on discounting of bills against letter of credit is to be taxed on receipt basis or accrual basis. Assessee contended that there was no escapement of income. Assessee were following mercantile […]
HC are of the view that none of the above referred conditions are fulfilled in the present case. In the result, this writ application stands allowed. The order of provisional attachment of the five bank accounts of the writ applicant under Section 83 of the Act is quashed and set aside.
Submissions were made that the Tax Board came to the conclusion that the department could not exercise powers under Section 26 of the RVAT Act, 2003 as the said power was not available under the RIPS, 2003 and also came to the conclusion on merits of the dispute that the amount of ‘partial exemption received by the assessee’ was not part of ‘payable tax’ and, therefore, basis for raising the demand was also quashed. It was vehemently submitted that the findings on both the issues are incorrect and deserve to be set aside.
Designated Committee cannot revisit the issue if once made the determination under Section 127(4) r/w. Rule 6 of the SVLDR Scheme Rules, 2019
Malayalam Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) The High court of Kerala permitted the petitioner to discharge the tax liability, inclusive of any interest and late fee thereon, in equal successive monthly installments. Please note Section 80 of the CGST Act, 2017 allows payment of tax due (other than the […]
