No deduction under the Head “Provident Fund” is permissible in the above provisions and I therefore, hold that the taxable value of Rs.22,93,296/- for which deduction has been claimed by the party is part of the value of taxable services and is not allowed.
The respondent on the other hand is of the view that the perpetual transfers being permanent rather not temporary, the show cause notices proposing to levy tax and the impugned orders of adjudication levying tax are without jurisdiction.
Delhi High Court held that appeal pertaining to period prior to 01 April 2005 is maintainable under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT) instead of section 45 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 since appeal is preferred after 01 April 2005.
CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and directed the AO to re-compute the “Income From Other Sources” after deducting the amount of Rs 24,25,426/-u/s 57(iii) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Patna High Court rules on extension of limitation for GST assessment orders in Barhonia Engicon Pvt Ltd case, addressing pandemic-related issues.
Kerala HC examines GST credit mismatch and procedural errors in ITC utilization under CGST and SGST, highlighting no revenue loss in Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex case.
Niraj Silk Mills Vs Commissioner of Customs (ICD) (Delhi High Court) Niraj Silk Mills/Hanuman Prasad and Sons/Manavi Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs – Delhi High Court – 27/11/2024 – Brief Analysis. The recent legal proceedings addressed appeals from Niraj Silk Mills and Hanuman Prasad and Sons against the Commissioner of Customs (ICD), Patparganj, […]
CAAR Mumbai clarifies the classification of Assy Guide Rails under Customs Tariff Act 87089900 as parts of motor vehicles, focusing on sunroof assembly usage.
HID India Pvt Ltd’s Signo Reader is classified under HS Code 8471, aligning with automatic data processing machines for use in access control systems.
ITAT Mumbai held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) amount while computing presumptive income under section 44B of the Income Tax Act cannot be included. Thus, issue decided in favour of assessee.
