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 Delhi in the case of ITO vs. Shree Rajeev Goenka that assessee cannot be said to make full and correct disclosure of all the facts if the return of income due date which he mentioned in return filed is different from the due date he claimed during reassessment proceedings.
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of Hewlett Packard India Sales P. Ltd held that creation of warranty Provision which is much higher than previous years provision cannot be disallowed without examining the scientific basis used by the assessee in working out the same.
The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Ranpariya Solanki Sukhadiya Parivar Trust vs. CIT(Exemption) held that the application made u/s 12AA cannot be rejected even a trust’s object is to function in the interest of a particular community
The CESTAT Chennai in the case of Ansaldo STS Transportation Systems India Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai held that if the importer had entered into transaction with related persons and failed to prove that the price had not been influenced by the relationship
The Hon’ble Sikkim High Court in the case of Future Gaming & Hotel Services Private Limited and others held that activities of distributors & agents selling lottery tickets cannot be considered as activities for facilitating promotion of lottery tickets issued by state government
Kerala High Court in the case of M/s Kerala Sponge Iron Ltd. vs. CIT held that once the income has been assessed u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit it cannot be treated as business income because it is not an income classifiable under any heads of income as per Sec 14.
The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Council for Citrus and Agri Juicing in Punjab Vs. CIT(TDS) held that the money lent by the public sector undertaking from the corpus fund created out of govt. sanctioned funds could not be deemed as loans advanced by the govt.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Riso India Private Limited held that the Special Additional Duty of Customs is also a duty leviable under Customs Act,1962 and all the procedures regarding demand, refund , drawback as applicable to all other custom duties would also be applicable to SAD.
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Parayil Balan Nair vs. CIT held that the change in statement made by a party on whose original statement the notice was issued to assessee cannot be relied without proper reasoning produced in support of such change.
Kerala High Court in the case of M/s Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. held that passing assessment order without examining expenses by Assessing Officer which ought not to allowed is a clear case of an assessment order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of revenue.
