It is the case of the petitioner that the transportation was of a consignment of watches that had been supplied to him by the seller in Delhi at a discounted rate of Rs.8.99. It is seen that the transportation of the goods was accompanied by Ext.P4 tax invoice, where the supplier in Delhi had shown the actual price of the consignment of watches, which was Rs.4,49,550/- and had given a discount of almost the entire amount save to the extent of Rs.8.99, and had paid IGST at the rate of 18% on the actual value of the watches.
CIT Vs Authority for Advance Ruling (Delhi High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the question raised in the notice under Section 143(2) can be stated to be ‘pending’ to attract clause (i) of the proviso to Section 245R(2) of the Act? In the present case, the petitioner i.e CIT argues that since the […]
LM Wind Power Blades India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action of respondent No. 4 in encashing the bank guarantees without waiting for expiry of the appeal period is wholly illegal and should be declared as such by this court. He submits that respondent […]
whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is liable to be taxed at 10% in view of replacement of 15% with 10% of tax in Article 12 of the DTAA without taking into consideration that the modification of rate of tax by way of notification?
CIT Vs M.A. Jacob & Company (Madras High Court) The order passed on the Settlement Applications filed by the assessee is dated 07.01.2000. The second order of ITSC was passed on 19.02.2004. After those orders passed by ITSC on the issue in question, concerning the assessee, in the year 2010, the Honourable Supreme Court had […]
The discretion available to the competent authority u/S 67(5) of the CGST Act while withholding supply of copies/extracts of documents seized appears to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority for reasons which prima facie appear to be cogent and convincing.
In the instant case, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash show cause notice issued by the respondents. The petitioner to reply to the said show cause notice within two weeks. Thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority shall consider the objection filed and pass orders in accordance with law.
The issue under consideration is whether agreement for construction of house interpreted as agreement for purchase for availing benefits of deduction u/s 54F if construction completed within three years?
whether depreciation is mandatory to be granted while determining the Appellant’s entitlement to the deduction under Section 80IB of the Act, even though the Appellant had not claimed such depreciation?
In order to enable the petitioners to avail Tansitional Credit in Electronic Credit Ledger. It was also prayed that the respondents should give effect to Form GST Tran-1 that had been manually submitted to the respondent-department to avail relevant Legitimate Input Tax Credit.
