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 […]
Union of India Vs Shiyaad (Kerala High Court) Respondents, members of the Plastic Recycling Industrial Association’ had sent a representation to the GST Council on 27.07.2017 by post alleging that levy of 18% GST on recycled plastic products had made adverse impact on that industry; that a prayer was made for completely withdrawing levy of […]
Observing that allegations regarding evasion of tax, against person engaged in the business of hallmarking, can only be with reference to its business activity, Kerala High Court has held that seizure of the gold jewellery, belonging to petitioners but seized from the premises of the hallmarker, was not justified. The Court also observed that goods entrusted by principal, with hallmarker, and covered by delivery challan, cannot be subject matter of confiscation order under Section 130 of the CGST Act, passed in relation to the hallmarker.
Amount received by letting out the shop rooms in the mall is business income taxable under the head Profits and gains of business.
Jilmon John Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) I am of the considered view that, there is a stipulation contained under clause 44 of Ext.P1 that, the Sales Tax as per Rules from time to time is liable to be paid by the petitioner and the rates quoted for various items remain unaffected by […]
