The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court ruling that bona fide purchasers cannot be denied ITC merely because the selling dealer failed to deposit VAT. The judgment distinguished genuine buyers from fraudulent transactions.
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes & Ors. Vs. LIS (Supreme Court of India) 1. The liability of the respondent- assessee to payment of tax under the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) is the question that arises for determination in the present appeal(s). 2. While the primary authority […]
The present appeals raise two important questions which arise under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The first question is whether, in relation to an operational debt
Assessing Officer view in disallowing the depreciation which was claimed under Section 32 of the Act was that once the capital expenditure is treated as application of income for charitable purposes, the assessees had virtually enjoyed a 100 per cent write off of the cost of assets and, therefore, the grant of depreciation would amount to giving double benefit to the assessee.
The Apex Court’s land mark ruling has once again affirmed the principle of ‘Purpose Test’ which determines whether the expenditure is capital in nature or revenue in nature; and the form of mechanism through which the subsidy is given, the point of time at which the subsidy is paid and the source of subsidy is immaterial.
The present appeals arise from a batch of judgments dealing with cases which come from Maharashtra and West Bengal. Insofar as the civil appeals relating to Maharashtra are concerned, the subsidy scheme of the State Government took the form of an exemption of entertainment duty in Multiplex Theatre Complexes newly set up
Tax ability of subsidies: Supreme Court stays judgement of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Bhushan Steels And Strips which held that if the recipient has the flexibility of using it for any purpose and is not confined to using it for capital purposes, the subsidy is revenue in nature and is taxable as profits
Bogus share capital: Law laid down in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal) etc that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned cannot be interfered with
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, on Wednesday categorically held that the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) prescribing monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable to pending appeals also.
CIT Vs M/s Modipon Ltd. (Supreme Court) Purpose of introduction of Section 43B of the Central Excise Act was to plug a loophole in the statute which permitted deductions on an accrual basis without the requisite obligation to deposit the tax with the State. Resultantly, on the basis of mere book entries an assessee was […]
