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...
Tribunal observed that normally it is practice that in case of any doubt or ambiguity, taxing provision is normally construed in favour of the assessee but when it is case of granting some exemption then there should be strict interpretation.
In the instant case, there was a reasonable cause in the assessee not mentioning the correct PANs in respect of a few deductees at the time of originally filing e-TDS quarterly statement of deduction of tax in Form No.26Q, which were in fact, not available with the assessee at the material time.
The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the assesseee was given sufficient opportunity to put forward his arguments with necessaryevidences by appearing in person or by an authorized representative.
Assessing Officer passed an order disallowing the deduction u/s 80IC and also rejected the assessee’s business loss set off against business income by concluding that the income credited to job work was an unexplained cash credit against which claim of set off not available.
The respondent assessee in all these appeals are partnership firms engaged in the business of banking and registered under the Kerala Money Lending Act. The assessees had filed return of income and the same was accepted in due course.
To make any disallowance under section 40A(3), it is a precondition that the assessee must have claimed deduction, directly or indirectly, for which payment is made in cash exceeding the specified limit.
The learned counsel for assessee justified the claim for depreciation on the ground that these amounts which were capitalized, represented expenditure incurred in raising finance for the acquisition of and/or for brining into existence capital assets and thus formed part of the cost of fixed assets.
Even if C-4 Raffinate is treated as Butylene exemption under S. No. 24 of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., would be available because specification of butylene in the said Sl. No. 24 is not for the purpose of its exclusion, but for the purpose of its specific enumeration and inclusion
It is true that the service rendered by the assessee by way of sale of pre‐paid SIM cards through distributors was ultimately received by the subscribers. However, where the law prescribes the value of taxable service to be the gross amount charged by the service‐provider, Service tax can be levied on that amount only.
The issue of limitation of claim under Sec 11B as raised by Revenue is also not maintainable because the amount paid by the appellant in excess of their service tax liability ceased to be in nature of service tax paid by them and is merely an excess deposit paid by the appellant.
