Rule 4(a) of the Re-Export Of Imported Goods (Drawback Of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995 provides for exemption or waiver of the requirement physical verification and cannot form the sole basis for rejection of the claim for drawback of duty under Section 74 of the Act.
By no stretch of imagination Form VAT 240 can be treated as a returns for the purposes of claiming input tax credit, especially in the light of the fact that filing of returns to compute the net tax liability has to take place keeping in view Section 10(3) and 10(4) of the KVAT Act.
Respondent is engaged in providing services with regard to maintenance and repair of computer software. Vide Notification dated 21.08.2003, the maintenance services related to computers, computer systems or computer peripherals were exempt from payment of service tax.
The Income Tax Department is also directed to consider the provisioning of a facility in its software to upload Income Tax Returns with the actual amount paid and for the system to accept the said returns even though the complete amounts had not been paid.
Zeenath Transport Company Vs Principal Additional Director General (Karnataka High Court) The petitioner is challenging the constitutional validity of Section 174 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is ultra virus the constitutional (101st) Amendment Act 2016 being violative of Article 14/19/265 of the Constitutional of India and also sought for quashing the show cause […]
The Hon’ble High Court concluded that order passed by JCCT Appeals cannot be said erroneous. Also concluded that the position adopted by ADC is not in line with KVAT Laws where the order passed by ADC was based on assumption that the benefit of refund of tax paid on purchase of Inputs can be granted only in respect of manufacture and processing of goods which is not at all prescribed under the law. Accordingly, there is no justification on the part of ADC in invoking revisional power u/s 64 (1) of the KVAT Act.
Since complainant was neither Registrar of companies nor a shareholder of the company or a person authorized by the Central Government to file the complaint, therefore, the complaint was dismissed as no other person can initiate any criminal proceeding against a company for the offence committed under the Act of 2013 .
Whether, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of IPO inter alia stamp duty is an allowable expenditure under section 35D of the I.T. Act
PCIT Vs Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Facts: 1. Taxpayer, a captive software development and support service provider, is subsidiary of Novell Inc US. The taxpayer provided software development and support services to its US Associated Enterprise and adopted Transactional Net Margin Method. 2. The taxpayer was providing depreciation as per […]
Commissioner of Customs Vs Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Conclusion: Imported material could be disposed of or utilized in any manner including local sale once the export obligations were fulfilled and the only requirement as per condition No.(vii) was that such inputs should not be sold or transferred in the market. In other words, […]
