Where assessee had deposited sale consideration amount in the Escrow Account as a security in respect of future liabilities of the company/ transferor, the year of taxability, irrespective of the delay in making investment in REC Bonds on account of uncertainty involved for receiving the amount, the year of taxability was year of receipt and therefore, assessee was eligible for deduction under section 54EC.
As the Counsel for GST council as well as that for the State were unable to tell as to whether the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted or not, the matter was listed on 28 February 2019. Two affidavits were filed but it is apparent that promises were being made only in the air
Assessee-company being a ‘willful defaulter’ could not be represented through the lawyers or Chartered Accountants as the personal hearing was available only to borrower Director and Promoter of the alleged default unit.
Recently, the issue of levibility of Service Tax on reimbursements on electricity expenses received from the occupants of a complex came before a Single Member Bench of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the levy of Service Tax on such transactions.
Non-filing of Income Tax Return by itself would not mean that the complainant had no source of income and thus, no adverse inference can be drawn in this regard only because of absence of Income Tax Return.
Assessee-GE group had carried out business through PE in India and GE India constituted DAPE in India for all overseas GE Group entities as LO were discharging vital responsibilities relating to finalization of commercial terms and a prominent involvement in the contract finalization process.
M/s. Sangeetha Jewellery Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) In this writ appeal it is mainly contended that the dismissal of the writ petition is erroneous on the ground that the judgment in M/s Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) covers only the question regarding constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST […]
It was submitted that all the five conditions enumerated under sub-section (3) of section 140 of the Act are satisfied by the petitioner. Referring to clause (iii) of sub-section (3) of section 140 of the Act, it was submitted that the same provides that the said registered person should be in possession of invoice or other prescribed documents evidencing payment of duty under the existing law in respect of such inputs.
In case an order is passed without following a prescribed procedure, the entire proceedings would not be vitiated. It would still be possible for authority to proceed further after complying with the particular procedure.
Background In the pre-GST period, the advance authorization license allowed an exporter to import raw materials used for manufacturing exported goods without payment of taxes on import of raw material used for past exports. Subsequently, the scheme was amended to allow exemption from IGST as well as compensation cess by issuing Notification No.79/2017-Cus dated 13.10.2017. […]
