The specific case of the petitioner is that the consignment was intended to be supplied to three parties for quality appraisal on job work basis. Such transactions are not prohibited. Such goods in terms of the provisions contained in the CGST and SGST Act are to be transported on delivery chalans. The question whether the person to whom such goods are supplied has registration is irrelevant in the context of the statutes.
Petitioner seeks release of the goods detained by the second respondent under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act as also the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act.
HC directs to make appropriate changes in the portal so as to enable the petitioner to comply with the statutory requirements for the period prior to 09.03.2018 also, within ten days
Academy of Medical Sciences Vs. CIT (Kerala High Court) Background Chapter XVII-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with deduction and collection of tax at source [with-holding tax]. This chapter is sub survient to section 4 i.e. charging section of the Act. Section 40(a)(ia) deals with dis-allowance of a portion of expenditure[ which is […]
In the absence of any communication on the request made by the petitioner, according to me, the assessing authority should not have completed the assessments, without a further notice to the petitioner.
The issue raised in all these Appeals/Writ Petitions are with respect to the liability of chit transactions, to service tax as arising from the Finance Act, 1994. The issue arises during three periods, in so far as the amendments made to the Finance Act, 1994
The Revenue is in appeal against the common order of the Tribunal for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The issue relates to acceptance of loans and deposits other than by way of Cheque or Draft, in violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity the Act] and the resultant penalty levied under Section 271D, totaling the amounts so accepted.
Assessing officer treated the receipts as unexplained cash credit for the reason that M/s. National Multi Commodity Exchange of India had confirmed that M/s. Vatika Merchants (supra) was expelled from the exchange long prior to the transactions in question.
CIT Vs. Younus Kunju (Kerala High Court) It needs no repetition that a judgmental error is not a review able error, nor can it be termed an error on the face of record. Error in reasoning or, for that matter, in applying law to facts is an appeal able error. And that power of appeal […]
CIT Vs. M/s Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (Kerala High Court) Amounts under the disputed heads were being received by the Assessee from its Subsidiary Company only as part of regular business transactions, which was being accounted properly. The change in circumstance, as to the distribution of dailies/publications in the Gulf, causing the same to be […]
