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...
Delhi High Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Customs vs. Shri Ram Niwas Verma held that acceptance of application by settlement commission in respect of gold which is covered in sec 123 is without jurisdiction as 3rd proviso to Sec 127B (1) provide a clear bar on the applications made in respect of goods covered u/s 123.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Orion Enterprises held that as per Basmati Rice Rules if the rice doesn’t qualify as Basmati rice then the same cannot be exported as the export of non-Basmati rice is illegal and liable to confiscation.
The Hon’ble Karnataka HC in the above cited case held that there must be a direct nexus between the material coming to the notice of the Income-Tax Officer and the formation of his belief that income has escaped assessment.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Alcatel Lucent Canada held that the income earned from the supply of hardware equipment where the embedded software facilitates the functioning of the equipmentcannot be taxed as royalty payments for use of software because there could not be any independent use of such software.
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of ABB Inc cracking down the order of Dispute Resolution Panel held that the incomes earned by foreign company from India can be taxed in India only when the incomes are attributable to the PE of foreign company in India.
The ITAT bench of Panaji in the case of Sesa Resources Limited held that the disallowance under Sec 14A read with rule 8D can be made only in respect of investments which are earning income exempt from tax and not the total investments.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Escorts Ltd. held that the test of marketability fairly satisfies when it is shown that the product is commercially known and being capable of bought and sold. The same not being actually sold is totally irrelevant.
Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of B.P.L. Limited Vs. CCE held that the benefit of exemption notification is available only when the conditions of notification are strictly met by the assessee and no benefit can be allowed by taking liberal view of any condition.
ITAT New Delhi in the case of ITO (TDS) Vs. Nokia India P. Ltd. held that the payments made by the assessee company to Finland based as a consideration for review of design , construction and quality control plans from outside India are not in the nature of fee for technical services as defined in Article 13 of DTAA between India and Finland.
The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. held that the passing of recovery order without issuance of show cause notice is against the principles of law and thus, the proceedings initiated has no validity.
