It is held that where no facility for advance ruling was made available under GST, it was held that Department must accept manually application for advance ruling under GST since web portal would not be ready to accept the same till January, 2018.
Where the assessee was trying to offset its IGST liability partially from CGST credit and partially from SGST credit but disallowed by GSTN portal with a message to first offset CGST credit completely before cross utilization. As there is no provision in GST law against such utilisation, Department was directed to file reply by next hearing date.
Whether the ITAT was right in holding that payment of Rs. 70 lakhs made by the appellant on account of non-competition for a period of five years was in the nature of capital expenditure?
a) Is Minister or his office a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act? b) Whether a citizen has right to information sought, and does the minister has corresponding obligation to give?
The recent judgment of the Trial Court in the matter of 2G scam denotes yet another failure of the conscience and consciousness of the nation because it did not invoke enough strong protest from the general public. Political expediency should not be allowed to sabotage and suppress the truth and allow the perpetrators of a crime to go unpunished.
D. Pauls Travel & Tours Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Anr. (Delhi High Court) The petitioner submits that it is in the business of booking tours and hotel packages for customers. They charge IGST from customers for bookings in hotels located outside Delhi. However, they are unable to avail input tax credit on the […]
There is no mention of Flavoured Chewing Tobacco in the definition of Pan Masala as per Appendix B. The ingredients mentioned in the definition of Pan Masala are used for human consumption in one form or the other and therefore come within the definition of food as per Section 2(v) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
The Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 questions the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
In other words, in all instances of an assessing officer having to pass a fresh assessment order upon remand where section 153(2A) would apply, the assessing officer would be bound to follow the time-limit imposed by sub-section (2A). Where the assessing officer was only giving effect to an appellate order, then section 153(3)(ii) of the Act would apply.
What is contemplated by Section 263, is an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the assessee. Failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
