In re Acharya Shree Mahashraman Chaturmas Pravas Vyvastha Samiti Trust (GST AAAR Karnataka) In the instant case, the Appellant had erected temporary accommodations at Kumbalagodu Village, Mysore Road, KengeriHobli, Bangalore North Taluk where the religious event was conducted. We find that the Appellant is not renting out ‘rooms’ but rather is renting out units of […]
In re Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Good Governance & Policy Analysis (GST AAR Madhya Pradesh) The amount recovered by the applicant from other government departments for doing research work and study, which help them make policies or understand its impact, shall be exempt subject to satisfaction of conditions laid down under Entry No. 3 […]
In re M/s. Penna Cement Industries Limited (GST AAR Telangana) In case of ex-factory inter-State sales affected by the applicant, the goods are made available by the supplier to the recipient at the factory gate, but this is not the point where movement terminates since the recipient subsequently assumes the charge for transportation of the […]
In re Sri Venkateshwara Agencies (GST AAR Telangana) Q1. Ice cream and ice cream allied products, milk shakes served in the parlour with or without adding ingredients like fruits or topping sauces according to the customer taste or requirements. Ans. For the period from 15.11.2017 to 30.09.2019 the supply falls under Sl.No. 7(i) of Not. […]
The issue under consideration is whether the High Court was right in directing that pre-deposit was not required for entertaining an appeal before the DRAT as mandated by Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act).
Atul Babubhai Shah Vs JCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Conclusion: All the expenses incurred by assessee during the temporary lull period were eligible for deduction as the same were necessary to incur or keep its business setup in existence. Held: During assessment proceedings, AO observed that assessee for the year under consideration claimed business expenses against NIL business […]
Respondent has not availed benefit of ITC after coming in to force of the GST and he has charged GST @18% which was required to be charged as per the Notification dated 01.07.2017.
PCIT Vs Orchid Pharma Ltd. (Madras High Court) Employee’s contribution should be paid within the due date as provided in the related statutes to be allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Merchem Ltd. [reported in (2015) 378 ITR […]
In view of the foregoing, the documentary material shown to us by the Respondent leads to the conclusion that the land in question would be categorized as a capital asset. Therefore, the assessee cannot claim the benefit of exemption to agricultural land and hence, the compensation received by the assessee in pursuance of land acquisition proceedings, is subject to tax and the refund has been rightly rejected,
Where return was revised under section 139(5), therefore, the original return filed under section 139(1) would not survive and hence, the claim of loss not made in original return but claimed in revised return had to be allowed.
