In case of warranty for the supply of free spare parts, once the replacement was made and the defective part was returned to the manufacturer, whether sales tax would be payable on such a transaction relating to the spare part, based on a credit note, which may be issued for the said purpose to dealer by the manufacturer was referred to Larger Bench to decide.
CIT Vs Jagannath Gupta Family Trust (Supreme Court of India) In case of order passed by High Court on cancellation of Trust Registration in which high court held that one Bogus Donation cannot prove that activities of Trust are not genuine but high court has ignored the fact that Trust has pleaded that proceedings for […]
In the light of the amendment made in the definition of the word ’employee’ as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act by Amending Act No. 47 of 2009 with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997, the benefit of the Payment of Gratuity Act was also extended to the teachers from 03.04.1997.
Principal CIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court) Hon’ble SC held practice of conversion of unaccounted money through the cloak of share capital/premium must be subjected to careful scrutiny. This would be particularly so in the case of private placement of shares, where a higher onus is required to be placed on […]
Reopening Of A Completed Assessment Not Allowed On A Issue Which Was Based On Nothing But A Change Of Opinion On The Same Facts And Circumstances Which Were Already In Knowledge Of Income Tax Officer Even During The Original Assessment Proceedings
The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it.
Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling on Provident Fund on Thursday (28 February, 2019) states that employers can’t segregate special allowances from basic salary. It has to be included for PF deductions under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, said a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Naveen Sinha.
Dinesh Textiles Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Supreme Court) Noting that Central Excise Rule 12B and the notification talked about ‘aggregate value’ of clearances of job worker, the Supreme Court has held that assessee manufacturing textiles through job workers would be liable once aggregate value crossed the threshold. The Apex Court […]
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Vivekananda Vidyamandir and Others (Supreme Court) Basic wage, would not ipsofacto take within its ambit the salary breakup structure to hold it liable for provident fund deductions when it was paid as special incentive or production bonus given to more meritorious workmen who put in extra output which has a […]
Gypsum boards would be taxable at 4 percent as per amended Entry 56 of Schedule IV instead of residuary Entry 1 of Schedule V at 12.5% Under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
