Gati-Kintetsu Express (P) Ltd. Vs Asstt. CST (Calcutta High Court) Section 121 is an exception to section 107 of the Act of 2017. While Section 107 of the Act of 2017 makes every decision or order passed under the Act of 2017 to be appealable, section 121 makes an exception thereto and states that, few […]
Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) Writ petition is disposed of directing the competent authority to complete the adjudication provided for under Section 129 of the statutes referred to above, within a week from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is also directed that […]
What subsection (1) of Section 54 of the Act requires is that the assessee, after the date of transfer, purchases or within three years after such date, constructs a residential unit, only then the benefit of deduction would be granted. This provision, therefore, provides that construction of the residential unit should be done after the date of transfer but, within three years from such date.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA.No.1496/Mds/2005 dated 19.12.2007 for the assessment year 2002-03. The above tax case appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law
The learnedCounsel for the Appellant submits that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than Rs.20 lakhs and as per the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10th December, 2015, the Department has taken a policy decision not to prosecute the appeals wherein the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs.
Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs CIT (Bombay High Court) While mere making of provision for bad debts will not by itself (on application of amended law) entitle the party to deduction, yet it would be a matter where the assessee should be given an opportunity to establish its claim. This by producing its evidence of the manner in which it […]
Seyadu Beedi Company Vs Asstt. Tax Officer (Intelligence), State Tax Officer (Intelligence) & Ors. (High Court Kerala) An identical matter has been disposed in W.A.No.1802 of 2017, directing expeditious completion of the adjudication of the matter and permitting release of the goods detained pending adjudication, in terms of Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and […]
Third issue highlighted by the petitioner is that Central and State Acts permit rectification of mistakes. However, GSTN portal does not permit rectification of a return already filed. Rectification is to be made in the subsequent return. Nevertheless authorities are issuing notices to the assessees whenever rectification is made, treating rectification as a discrepancy between GSTR1 and GSTR3B. A large number of assessees are facing this problem.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that that due to technical fault of the State Web-site E-way bill-02 could not be generated on 25.3.2018 before the movement of the goods from Varanasi to Fatehpur, however, the same was generated on 26.3.2018 in the morning which was much before the date of seizure order which has been admittedly passed on 27.3.2018 at 6 p.m.
The Madras High Court recently ruled that payment of Interest by the co-operative society to its members would not attract tax deduction at source (TDS) prior to the amendment of such provision.
