Where employer had incurred genuine expenditure for the welfare and the benefit of the employees, contributions to unapproved and unrecognized funds had to be allowed as a deduction.
Employees’ contribution to EPF and ESIC deposited beyond the due date prescribed under section 36(1)(va) would not be eligible for deduction even if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income tax under section 139(1).
Since no incriminating material was unearthed by AO during the course of search operation under section 132, therefore no addition could be made during the relevant assessment year under section 153A by reopening the assessment on the matter, which was examined earlier during original assessment.
Pr. CIT Vs Goldman Sachs (India) Finance Pvt Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The amount in question was by way of reimbursement of costs. The Tribunal held that Assessee had paid such sums towards administrative costs such as the employee cost, rent, finance and legal corporate recharge etc. The Tribunal noted that, GSIPL had provided services […]
Section 174(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 prima facie seems to preserve the levy insofar as any liability to pay tax was incurred by the individual or concern. Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition cannot be maintained. It is open to the Writ petitioner to raise all contentions including levy and extent of levy of service tax before the adjudicating officer concerned. Writ petition is disposed of.
Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Patna High Court) The fact remains that the service tax for the period in question was deposited by the petitioner but after realizing it from its customers. This fact is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that no refund application was filed by […]
Veer Industries Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Gujarat High Court) Section 48 clarifies that any amount payable by a dealer or any other person on account of tax, interest or penalty for which he is liable to pay to the Government shall be a first charge on the property of such dealer or as the […]
SARFAESI Act provides only secured creditors to initiate action against the borrower and a demand made by a person or legal entity who was not the secured creditor was definitely prejudicial to the interest of assessee.
Hon’ble Patna High Court held that ITC availed but not utilized for tax payment doesn’t invite penal consequences of Section 73 of CGST Act, 2017 and interest cannot be recovered on mere availment of ITC which was not utilized
M/s. Amit Cotton Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Gujarat High Court) Circular cannot run contrary to Statutory Provisions –Guj HC orders grant of IGST Refund. Facts: Writ-applicant had exported goods in July 2017. It is the case of the writ-applicant that it is eligible to seek refund of the IGST in accordance with the […]
