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...
ITAT held that it is generally accepted prudent practice that the closing stock to be valued at lower of cost or net realizable value. Further, net realizable value means the value which the goods would fetch at the time of actual sale.
Since redemption of preference shares does not result in reduction of share capital as per Sec 80 of the Companies Act,1956 , the redemption value cannot be taxed as deemed dividend as the distribution of profits if at all there may be is not resulting in reduction of capital.
ITAT held that simultaneous trading of shares in cash segment and arbitrage in derivative segment by assessee company cannot be splitted into speculative and non-speculative transactions . So, as soon as it is found that assessee is trading in shares , the entire trading activity to be treated as speculative business as per explanation to Sec 73 which clearly state that if any part of assessee’s business is trading in shares then the same trading to be treated as speculative business.
The Hon’ble Bombay High court in the above cited case held that a consideration receivable by the transferor which is contingent on happening of a future event the outcome of which is uncertain and cannot be predicted with a reasonable degree of certainty.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the provisions of Sec 50C is applicable only to transfer of land of which the assessee is absolute and legal owner and cannot be applicable to the transfer of leasehold rights in land.Thus, the transfer value cannot be benchmarked to stamp duty value.
The ITAT Mumbai in the above cited case held that raising of invoices per se doesn’t result in accrual of income rather an income can be considered to have been accrued only when there is a corresponding liability of the other party to pay the amount to the assessee and there is realistic probability of realization of the income to the assessee.
The Hon’ble Kerala HC in the above cited case held that exempting cable operators from luxury tax while making DTH operators to pay the same is a case of discriminatory levy of luxury tax merely because of technological differences in the system of deliveryof entertainment in both the services.
The ITAT Kolkata in the above cited case held that if the additional income disclosed by assessee u/s 132(4) voluntarily without being any incriminating material found during the course of search , then department cannot levy penalty u/s 271AAA on such voluntarily disclosed income.
ITAT held that making of an incorrect claim by assessee which is supported by a report of Chartered Accountant cannot be hold as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted as the claim made under bonafide belief.
The ITAT New Delhi in the above cited case held even export made by assessee through third parties are also to be considered while working out deductions allowable u/s 10B as such exports are deemed exports and recognized by Foreign trade policy for extending export benefits.
