Assessee was importing food products like Sherbet from the Kingdom of Bhutan. As per assessee he would fall under Section 3(2-C) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Seventh Amendment) Act, 2002.
Assessee was predominantly engaged in activities of imparting education and also involving the certain educational institutions. Assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 on disclosing nil income.
ITAT Delhi held that fees for providing Spa Consultancy falls under the category of ‘Independent Personal Service’ and hence was not taxable in India and therefore assessee was not required to deduct TDS. Thus, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) deleted.
Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prescribing pecuniary jurisdictions of the district, state and national commissions on the basis of value of goods and services paid as consideration.
Assessee was a partnership firm engaged in real estate development, had undertaken a housing project named Aakash Nidhi. It claimed deduction under section 80-IB(10) amounting to Rs. 2,51,07,390 on the entire profit of the project comprising Wings A to G.
ITAT Jaipur held that trust incurring more expenditure than income doesn’t debar it from benefit of exemption u/s. 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act in respect of income admittedly applied for charitable purpose. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the enhanced rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 87/2017-Cus. dated 17.11.2017 is not applicable here since notification was published in Official Gazette on 20.11.2017 and date of entry inwards are prior to 20.11.2017.
Patna High Court held that taxpayer will not be eligible for Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 [DTVSV Scheme] against notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act since dispute tax is not ascertainable.
Jharkhand High Court held that order solely based on the judgement which has been later on over-ruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court requires interference and hence the order passed by ITAT is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Patna High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger justified since there is sufficient material before department to satisfy with regard to necessity of passing an order under rule 86-A(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
