ITAT held that a retiring partner took only money towards the value of his share on retirement and when there was no distribution of capital assets going to the partners, there was no transfer of capital asset and consequently, no profits or gain was chargeable under Section 45 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The object of issuing notifications/circulars dated 27.03.2020 and 17.04.2020 was to provide financial relief in repayment due to COVID-19 to the parties who have availed the term loans and working capital facilities but this relief is not extended towards factoring facilities.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Circular dated 27.03.2020 issued by the Reserve Bank of India has not been implemented by the banks. Hon’ble Supreme Court directs the Reserve Bank of India to ensure implementation of the Circular dated 27.03.2020 in its letter and spirit.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs UNI Products India Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) The core issue in these appeals is as to whether car mats come under chapter-heading 57.03 or not. In the second appeal, the numerical representation of the product, as claimed by the assessee, was different but that difference is not of much […]
In re JVS Foods Pvt. Ltd (GST AAAR Rajasthan) Fortified Rice Kernels (FRK) manufactured by the appellant do not have essential character of natural Rice and also does not merit classification under Chapter 10 in terms of Chapter Note 1 (A) of the said Chapter. It is appropriately classifiable under the sub-heading of Chapter 19 […]
State of Sikkim Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) Conclusion: Levy of license fee on the draw of lotteries under Section 5BA of Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST) Act, within the state of Kerala was prohibited by the virtue of law, so the Kerala Tax under Section 5BA of Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST) […]
Align Components Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) It is clarifed that since the State of Maharashtra has partially lifted the lock down recently in certain industrial areas in the State of Maharashtra, the workers would be expected to report for duties as per the shift schedules subject to adequate protection, from […]
The issue under consideration is whether deduction under section 80IAB will be allowed against the income of lease/ rental income from development of SEZ irrespective of wrong classification of head of income.
Kerala State Beverages (Manufactoring And Marketing) Corporation Limited Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court) Conclusion: Surcharge on sales tax and turnover tax was not a ‘fee or charge’ coming within the scope of Section 40 (a) (iib) and was not an amount which could be disallowed under the said provision. Therefore the disallowance made in this […]
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Exide Industries Limited & Anr. (Supreme Court) Before the judgment in Bharat Earth Movers (supra), various tribunals and High Courts across the country were treating the liability in lieu of leave encashment as a contingent liability. This did not go down well with the assessees following the mercantile accounting […]
