Service Tax : Despite doing away with the service-specific descriptions, there will be some descriptions where some differential treatment will ...
Income Tax : The Parliament has passed the the Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2009 which is to replace the Competition (Amendment) Ordinance, 20...
Income Tax : The government is likely to seek the Cabinet’s approval on amending the Competition Act 2002 to facilitate the winding up of the...
Income Tax : After a lull, the contentious provisions regarding mergers and acquisitions (M&A’s) of the amended Competition Act is back on th...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings became time-barred because no reassessment order was passed within the li...
Service Tax : Profit arising from purchase and sale of cargo space by a freight forwarder on principal-to-principal basis was trading income and...
Service Tax : CESTAT Chandigarh held that the Air Travel Agents are not required to pay Service Tax on the Commission received by them from CDS/...
Company Law : The tribunal held that mere suspicion or possibility of fraud without supporting evidence cannot justify action under Section 66 o...
Company Law : Supreme Court held that section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 doesn’t require mandatory obtaining or circulating of formal valua...
Service Tax : Notification No. 43/2009-Service Tax Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that a practice was generally prevalent regarding...
Service Tax : Notification No. 33/2009 - Service Tax Central Government hereby exempts the taxable service provided to any person in relation to...
Income Tax : That the said Association will submit to the prescribed authority by 30th June, each year, a copy of their audited annual accounts...
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan of Saturn Rings and Forgings Private Limited submitted by S. Gopalkrishnan meeting the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and Regulations 37, 38, 38 (1A) and 39 (4) of the Regulations is approved.
Resolution Plan meet the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Code and Regulations 37, 38, 38 (1A) and 39 (4) of the Regulations. The Resolution Plan was not in contravention of any of the provisions of Section 29A of the Code and was in accordance with law. The same need to be approved.
Assessee was approached by Financial Creditor of FR Tech Innovations Private Limited (CD) for proposing the name of assessee as IRP in the company petition to be filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 in the NCLT, Mumbai Bench by the FR Tech Innovations Private Limited.
NCLT Delhi held that an amalgamation of a Sole Proprietorship Firm with a Company is not permissible under the law. Thus, Merger and Amalgamation of sole proprietorship firm and company is not possible u/s 232 of Companies Act, 2013.
Cenvat Credit on Input or Capital Goods could not be denied merely for showing tubes and flaps separately in invoices. Moreover, tubes and flaps were used in the manufacture of the tyres and as such qualify to be “inputs” given the definition given under Rule 2(k) of CCR, 2004.
CESTAT Bangalore held that TDS amount paid to the Government by the appellant from his own account not to be included in the gross taxable value. Accordingly, service tax not leviable on the same.
CESTAT Kolkata held that notification no. 41/2012-ST grants refund of service tax paid on the taxable services used for export of goods. The said refund includes refund of Swachh Bharat Cess (SBC) and Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) too.
Explore the CESTAT Ahmedabad verdict on Dhariwal Industries Ltd. vs. C.C.E. & C. – Anand, clarifying service tax liability on GTA services and cenvat credit entitlement.
CESTAT Mumbai held that demand to be unsustainable as even though belatedly the appellant has availed option provided under rule 6 and reversed the relevant cenvat credit along with interest. Concluded that even post-clearance compliance of stipulations precluded denial of an entitlement available otherwise.
CESTAT Allahabad held that invocation of extended period of limitation under proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act unjustified in absence of any willful suppression of facts with an intent to evade the payment of tax.
