Hon’ble High Court of Kerala which held that an expenditure to be incurred in future in respect of a liability that accrued during the related accounting would be eligible for a deduction.
Demanding details pertaining to the bank account of a person and of remittances made to the Income Tax Department towards discharge of tax liability shall amount to infringement of Right to Privacy, therefore, assessee was not bound to furnish their income tax returns and the bank account statements, as a condition for continuing the petroleum retail dealership granted to them.
G NXT Power Corp Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court) After hearing the counsel on the adjustment, the Court has suggested refund of IGST after adjusting the higher rate of duty drawback availed by the petitioner without refunding IGST amount. The counsel have consented to disposing of the writ petition by this order: a) […]
Sabu Johny Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) (a) Section 3(6) of Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 is within the competence of State legislature and Section 3(6) is not in any manner repugnant to Chapter IV of Motor Vehicles’ Act, 1988 or ultra vires Act 1976. Section 3(6) therefore is valid and legal. (b) The registration […]
By crediting enhanced value of land, which belonged to assessee-firm to current account of partners of firm and by treating it as loan from the partners in account of company, there was violation of provisions contained in clauses (a) and (c) of proviso to section 47(xiii). Therefore, the said transaction would amount to transfer of capital asset within the purview of section 45 and thus, the profits or gains obtained by transfer of asset by firm to company would be treated as capital gains.
Deduction under Section 36(1)(va) with regard to Employees’ Provident Fund, Labour Welfare Fund and Employees’ State Insurance was not allowable where contribution had been made after the due date prescribed in the respective enactments.
The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order made under Section 129 of KSGST Act. Ext.P5 is an appealable order. The petitioner by furnishing Bank Guarantee has obtained release of goods intercepted and detained by the authorities under Section 129.
Whenever any compensation is awarded for the acquisition of a land under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, except those covered by section 46 of the 2013 Act, same was exempt under section 96 of the RFCTLAAR Act, 2013.
Madaparambil Varkey Varghese Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court) The compensation awarded for the acquisition of land, buildings etc of the petitioner by Kochi Metro Rail Project is Rs.7,54,24,705/-. During the Assessment Year 2016-17 the petitioner has received 80% of the compensation determined through Award dated 30.10.2015. While computing the net taxable income of the petitioner-assessee, […]
Shantam Bose Vs. Union of India (Kerala High Court) After the initiation of proceedings the petitioner was promoted to the post of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as per order dated 12.1.2012. According to him, the factum of his promotion to higher post is indicative of the fact that the official respondents are not considering the charges […]
