(i) Section 110(1)(b)(iii) of the CGST Act which states that a Member of the Indian Legal Services, who has held a post not less than Additional Secretary for three years, can be appointed as a Judicial Member in GSTAT, is struck down. (ii) Section 109(3) and 109(9) of the CGST Act, 2017, which prescribes that the tribunal shall consists of one Judicial Member, one Technical Member (Centre) and one Technical Member (State), is struck down.
Madras High Court passes an interim order against AAAR on plea of RWAs to charge GST only on the amount in excess of Rs.7500/- but not on the entire amount.
CIT Vs Shri. T. Perumal (Madras High Court) Here is a case where the loan taken from friends and repayment of the same in cash. The reason that taking of loan is found to be genuine and the same is for business exigency, it is not a case of undisclosed income. If the assessee had […]
High Court of Madras in the matter of Commissioner of CGST v. M/s. Daejung Moparts Pvt. Ltd. [W.A.Nos.2127 and 2151 of 2019] dated 23.07.2019 dismissed the Letter Patent Appeal filed by the department and upheld the order of single bench, whereby assessee was directed to pay interest consequent to delay in filing of Return, only on net tax liability (after deduction of Input Tax Component).
Since CIT rejected assessee’s application for stay of recovery of demand merely relying of CBDT instruction which was cryptic and non-speaking as CBDT circular/instruction could not serve as a series of guidelines in the matter of grant of stay, therefore, the matter was remanded back to CIT for disposal afresh in accordance with law.
In the present case, the Assesses had incurred substantial expenditure towards renovation leading to enduring benefit. They are not merely repairs. The Assessees had also incurred expenditures towards improvement and construction of the building. These cannot be termed as ‘repairs’.
Tushin T. Mehta Vs CCIT (Madras High Court) The writ petitioner’s father late Mr. Tushaar Mehta voluntarily filed his return of income for the assessment year 1996-97 on 28.03.1997 admitting the total income of Rs.11,06,129/-. The assessee had claimed long term capital gains of Rs.3,26,813/- on sale of property made during that year. The property […]
M/s. Stanadyne Amalgamations Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s. AVO Carbon India Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court) Madras High Court has allowed Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs/raw material at the time of debonding of an EOU into DTA. The Court observed that proviso in Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 inserted in 2008 […]
Khivraj Tech Park Pvt Ltd. Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) The petitioner was granted permission for setting up a ‘Software Technology Park’ and a communication dated 29-11-2005 was sent by the Ministry. Since their imports had already arrived during October-November 2005, an amendment of the effective date of approval to 4-4-2005 was sought, […]
Shares purchased pursuant to the order of Company Court would not amount to capital gain and rather to be treated as a dividend.Whenever a company distributes its profits to its shareholders, the profit so disbursed, will amount to dividend and Dividend Distribution Tax at 15% was required to be paid by assessee u/s 115O.
