PSN Automobiles Private Limited Vs. UOI & CBIC (Kerala High Court at Ernakulam) Petitioner, has submitted that the amount of 1% the dealer collects from the purchaser of a car worth more than ten lakhs, under Section 206C(1F) of the Income Tax Act, cannot be treated as an integral part of the value of the […]
M/S Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt Ltd Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) Core Question as the petitioners put it,is does the State have the legislative competence to enact section 174 and save the past taxation events—comprising levy, assessment, and recovery—when Entry 54, List II, which is the field of legislation empowering the State, stood […]
Assessee-employer had contributed a specific amount to each employee which was credited to a Staff Welfare Fund Account alongwith interest thereon and the amounts retained with the employer and the interest accrued in the name of a particular employee, was taxed in the hands of that employee. Hence though there was a common fund and accrual of interest, the same had to be treated as having been credited separately on the employees account in the relevant fund which was permissible for deduction under Section 36(1)(va).
Kerala High Court rules in favor of Anoop Raj, Director of a private limited company, challenging revenue recovery proceedings under Section 26C of Kerala GST Act.
Kerala High Court ruling on Income Tax return deadline. Assessees facing difficulties due to floods can apply for extension under Section 119(2)(b). Waiver for interest/penalty for late payment also allowed.
Delay of three years in filing of application for registration under section 12A was condonable as assessee which was enjoying exemption from income-tax from its inception was suddenly faced with the prospect of being made liable under the taxing statute and due to same, assessee had filed applications under Section 12AA with considerable delay.
I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time its statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that it has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition.
Deduction under section 35D for amortisation of preliminary expenses in connection with the issue of shares for public subscription was allowable to assessee bank extending financial services.
Transfer of patent rights would be subject to CST as while transferring of intangible rights obtained under a statute, to another entity having its place of business in another State; from where the transferee intended to exercise such rights thereafter, postulated a movement of the intangible, corporeal goods from one State to another and, hence, would be an inter-state sale assessable to tax.
M/s. Lal Products Vs Intelligence Officer (Kerala High Court) Hon’ble Kerala High Court had an occasion to determine the situs of sale of incorporeal goods namely, patents and trademarks when the contract of sale was executed by the Appellant in the state of Gujarat where they had one operating manufacturing plant while the HO of […]
