Municipal Corporation has to carry out certain functions of obligatory and some of discretionary character. In carrying out such functions, it has powers granted under the Act. It can generate revenue and apply the same for the purpose of carrying out its functions.
In this matter, the Hon ’ble Gujarat High Court quashed and set aside the judgment of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal holding that the Tribunal was not justified in deciding the appeal on merits of the adjudication order when the appeal before it was against the order passed by the first appellate authority dismissing the appeal on non-deposit of pre-deposit
Subsection(1) of section 14A provides that for the purpose of computing total income under chapter IV of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act.
Clause 11 of Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 specifically states that “this instruction will apply to appeals filed on or after 9.02.2011. However, the cases where appeals have been filed before 9.02.2011 will be governed by the instructions on this subject
The High Court of Ahmedabad held in the case of Ramilaben Bharatbhai Patel v. Union of India that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the High Court does not have power to waive or relax the condition of depositing 50% of tax dues by December 31, 2013 under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013.
Petitioners have challenged an order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax, Rajkot as a designated authority under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme
Hon’ble Gujarat HC has held in the case of Dineshchandra Bhailalbhai Gandhi VS. TRO has held that deposits in PPF Account are immune from attachment for recovery of tax dues and Rule 10 of Schedule II of the I-T Act exempts all such properties from attachment or sale.
On remand, the Assessing Officer to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and the case law at the time he decides the matter, inclusive of the decision of the Special Bench of the tribunal rendered in the case of IndusInd Bank Ltd..
Section 41(1) of the Act would apply in a case where there has been remission or cessation of liability during the year under consideration subject to the conditions contained in the statute being fulfilled. Additionally, such cessation or remission has to be during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration.
Assessee in his return submission dated 6.11.2009 had explained that the purchase of 2 JCB machines were made from Yantraman Automac Pvt.Ltd., Baroda and both these purchases were on hypothecation with Centurion Bank of Punjab.
