Goods and Services Tax : Sec 17(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that where the goods or services are used partly for effecting taxable supplies (includin...
Goods and Services Tax : It is important to determine whether property is movable or immovable as it is first and foremost thing which include or exclude t...
Goods and Services Tax : Writing an article to appraise readers, how they can use SUMIF in analyzing the financial data. Use of SUMIF in excel: ♠ SUMIF i...
Goods and Services Tax : Let’s understand the amendments made in the CGST and IGST Act by way of CGST & IGST Amendment Act 2018 assented to by the Pr...
Goods and Services Tax : Hello friends, Greetings of the day! In this article, the provisions of the place of supply has been discussed with examples. ♠ ...
Income Tax : HC held that mark to market loss in respect of forward contracts claimed as loss from business income cannot be disallowed as the ...
Income Tax : Bombay HC held that supplying of reasons for reopening assessment is a jurisdictional requirement and non-supplying of same when a...
Income Tax : SC held that amount received as subvention/grant from parent company by a loss making subsidiary cannot be considered as revenue r...
Income Tax : HC held that a reference to TPO can be made only after passing a speaking odder disposing off objections raised by assessee. In th...
Income Tax : Bombay HC held that an unintentional error on the part of assessee while filling an appeal, more so when the department also acte...
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of Shri E. Krishnappa vs. ITO held that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) without mentioning its basis i.e. concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars or both would make the proceedings illegal because AO’s satisfaction of the existence
Input services not only cover services of falling in the substantial part of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 but also cover services which are covered under the inclusive part as the same having some sort of nexus with the business activity of the assesses.
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Precision Metals vs. CCEx held that as per the special procedure prescribed in Notification no. 214/86 job worker can get duty exemption in respect of job worked goods cleared to principal manufacturer but this exemption donot make the goods as exempt from duty because ultimately duty got paid at the principal manufacturer send
The CESTAT Mumbai held that when there is no allegation regarding fraud, willful misstatement, suppression of fact which are required as per Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act , then imposition of penalty by the department is wrong and illegal.
The Hon’ble MP High court in the above stated case placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. President, Rajasthan Roadways Union & Anr.
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Arbes Tools Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCExheld that as per Rule 11(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification 23/2004-CE, the amount of credit earned by the manufacturer under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, which existed prior to 10.9.2004, can be utilized by them as per transitional rule 11 of the new Cenvat credit rules,2004.
Delhi HC in the case of WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. held that in the absence of ‘mutual agreement’ or ‘arrangement’ or ‘action in concert’ for the allocation or apportionment of or contribution to the cost or expenses incurred by the Assessee in connection with benefit, service or facility provided to the AE , there cannot be an international transaction.
When the admissibility of Cenvat credit is not disputed on legal grounds viz eligibility and duty payment document, then credit cannot be denied merely on technical lapses.
It is held that merely because assessee has not reverse credit attributable to provision of exempted services would not disentitle it to claim credit which is otherwise available in respect of input services used in provision of taxable services.
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of CCEx vs. M/s Wartsila (I) Pvt. Ltd. held that exemption under notification no. 25/2002-CE is available the goods supplied should be used in the construction of warship of Indian Navy and in respect of such goods a certificate is produced from Indian Navy.
