ITAT Chennai held that deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act restricted to only for one floor (3rd floor) as assessee failed to establish that two floors (3rd and 4th floor) is one residential house.
Badal Bhupatrai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat allows anticipatory bail application, accepting the contention that: (i) directors of the company cannot be prosecuted in absence of a statutory provision; (ii) company has been wound up under section 433 and 434 of the companies act and hence, […]
KEC International Ltd. Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) The Hon’ble High Court held that once the money has been received by the State Government, credit has to be given to the petitioner. It is for the KSEB to clarify how the payment was made to the State Government and the petitioner cannot be […]
HP Adhesives Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay high court) The Petitioner applied under the SVLDRS Scheme. The application was rejected on the ground that redemption fine is not covered under section 125 of the SVLDR Scheme. Accordingly, the petition was filed against such rejection. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay set aside such rejection […]
Abinash Kumar Singh Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) Calcutta High Court held that provisions of section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 opens with a non-obstante clause. Accordingly, imposition of penalty u/s 129 justifiable on transporting goods without a valid e-way bill. Facts- The petitioner […]
ITAT Delhi held that amount received on account of business support services cannot be treated as ‘Fees for Technical Services’ (FTS) under Article 12(5) of India Netherlands DTAA and hence addition towards the same unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that share application money received in cash for allotment of shares would not amount either to a loan or deposit within the meaning of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271D not leviable.
Madras High Court held that simultaneous initiation of proceedings, both by Central Authority and by the State Authority, under GST Act is impermissible under law as per the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, 2017.
During investigation there is no discrepancy pointed out regarding the stock of raw material maintained by the appellant and the return submitted for the relevant period shows proper transaction of said material as claimed by the appellant. After considering the above facts and circumstances, I find no reason to allege that the appellant had availed ineligible CENVAT credit.
Undisputedly investment been made out of part of sale consideration. Therefore, simply because sale deed been executed subsequently, section 54F deduction cannot be denied
