Maturu Panchakshari Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court) The GST regime which came into effect from 01.07.2017 repealed a host of indirect taxes which were previously in force. Section 140 of SGST Act provides for transfer of the amount of Value Added Tax Credit carried forward under the APVAT Act, 2005 […]
Jindal ITF Ltd. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) It is seen that the entities M/s Glebe Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Danta Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. have been used as conduits in availing unsecured loans covered u/s 68 of the Act. The identity and creditworthiness of the above companies and genuineness of the transaction […]
Deductions either under Section 10A or 10B would be made while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking and not at the stage of computation of the total income.
When partnership firm was transformed into private limited company, there was no distribution of assets and as such, there was no transfer and therefore, assessee was not liable to pay any tax on capital gains.
In the present case there are allegations on the petitioner of having caused loss to State-Exchequer to the tune of Rs 20 crores appx. by evasion of payment of GST and he has applied for grant of interim bail, mainly on account of the prevalent conditions of spread of COVID-19 virus.
Pirna Urban Co-Oeprative Credit Society Ltd. Vs ITO (Bombay at Goa High Court) The issue under consideration is the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to the petitioner’s bank i.e. Ratnakar Bank Ltd., requiring the bank to remit an amount of 2,33,42,040/- as dues towards the payment of income tax by the petitioner. […]
Section 194 C of the IT Act deals with deduction of tax at source when it comes to payment to contractors. In the present case, since neither the Assessee nor M/s. Prabhu Construction can be styled as contractors, it is obvious that the provisions of Section 194C of the IT Act were not attracted. Hence Section 194C will not be invoked in this case and therefore consequently provision of sec 40(a)(ia) would also not applicable.
The issue under consideration is that the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent not to declare its pending loan accounts as Non Performing Assets (NPA). The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent for grant of moratorium of three months to it in terms of circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India(RBI).
Learned counsel for the respondent contends that RBI guidelines and package are not applicable to the case of the petitioner, in as much as, the petitioner was already in default as on 01.03.2020 and the package is applicable only to those instalments which fall due on 01.03.2020 and also only to those borrowers who were properly servicing their account till 01.02.2020 and were not in default.
Section 84A of the Gujarat VAT Act is declared as ultra vires and beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and is also declared to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground of being manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and oppressive.
