In re Atriwal Amusement Park (GST AAR Madhya Pradesh) Regarding the eligibility of ITC in case of Input Tax paid on Purchase of Water Slides, we have to state that Water Slides shall fall within the meaning of the term apparatus, equipment and machinery and therefore, shall be eligible for claim of ITC. Regarding the […]
Assessee was not liable to pay the service tax at all as it was a statutory body discharging the statutory function as per the statute Karnataka Industrial Areas Development (KIAD) Act, 1966 and hence was not liable to pay service tax.
TAT states that the order passed by CIT(A) is not clear in as much way the ld. CIT(A) has given a general direction without having regard to the factual aspects of ‘receipts and expenditure’ relating to exhibitions presented before ITAT. A clear cut direction from ld. CIT(A) in this regard would be helpful to both the assessee and the AO.
Foreclosure charges collected by the banks and non banking financial companies on premature termination of loans are not leviable to service tax under ‘banking and other financial services’ as defined under section 65 (12) of the Finance Act
CESTAT directs Customs Authorities to return confiscated gold to Foreign National- lack of evidence and flimsy investigation by the authorities. Held that in the absence of ‘intent to conceal’ cannot be construed as smuggled.
The Court examined the contentions of the Petitioner that the Respondent had Bank Accounts and other moveable properties within the territorial jurisdiction of New Delhi along with the Administrative Office. Further, the Respondent submitted that the immovable property was on lease and not owned by the Respondent. However, the Court noted that the Respondent did not deny existence of moveable properties like Bank Accounts within the jurisdiction of the Court.
The non-rejection of the explanation in the Assessment Order would amount to the Assessing Officer accepting the view of the assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion.
Services provided by NSDL to depository participants are aptly of ‘provision and transfer of information and data processing’, classifiable under (vii) of Banking and Financial Services as defined under Section 65(12) of Finance Act, 1994;
The issue under consideration is whether the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) can be invoked in case of agricultural land where it doesn’t qualify as falling in the definition of capital asset?
It is an admitted position that the impugned order dated 14.5.2020 is passed without hearing the petitioner and only on the short ground, the impugned order dated 14.5.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside and the authorities concerned shall pass a fresh order on merits without being influenced by the order impugned after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
