As per Section 129 of GST Act, the detention notice has been passed on the ground that the validity period of the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation had already expired at the time of detention.
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Colour Roof (India) Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner v/ s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., [2018] 404 ITR 1 has held that sine-qua-non for application of Section 41(1) of the Act, is that there should have been allowance or deduction claimed by the Assessee in […]
We request the learned President of CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi to initiate some remedial measures by deputing a Member Technical for atleast two weeks during a month to hold Court at Chandigarh Bench so that the Divisional Bench, CESTAT, Chandigarh Bench can function for reducing the pendency.
Tube Investments of India Limited Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) Exemption, when port notified subsequently: Madras High Court has allowed benefit of Notification No. 104/2009-Cus. (status holder incentive scheme) in a case where the imports were made before the addition of the name of the specific port in the said notification. It observed […]
Where assessee had hired the services for various works such as storage of data, scanning of documents, processing charges, call center operations, etc. and the same were basically clerical services of repetitive nature of work therefore, work outsourced was in the nature of clerical work and was rightly deducted under section 194C.
Auto-generated communication dated 24.3.2019 which contained the note of withholding of the refund in terms of Section 241A of the Act, does not satisfy any of the legal tests for passing said order. Firstly, it is not passed by the Assessing Officer who is competent to do so. Secondly, it is not even an order, it is a mere auto-generated communication. Thirdly, it does not contain any reasons recorded in writing and lastly it is not passed with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.
The query raised relates to a contra situation, one, where amounts have been received by an employee from the employer by reason of premature termination of contract of employment, and the taxability thereof. The Board has answered in the negative, pointing out that such amounts would not be related to the rendition of service.
Under the Rule 16 of The Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules 2014, the accused has the responsibility being Director to forward to the Registrar copy of resignation along with the applicable fees in Form DIR-11 within 30 days of such resignation.
Legal expenses incurred to protect the Directors of the company in respect of the complaints filed against them in their individual capacity will not allowed under section 37 as business expenses.
Magma Fincorp Limited Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Bombay High Court) Section 78 of Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Related Laws (Amendments, Validation and Savings) Act, 2017, which saves Section 64 of Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 is constitutionally valid. Bombay High Court has held that by virtue of Section 78 of State […]
