Sale of banking software to a bank was ‘commercial exploitation’ merely because the bank deployed the software in its normal business activities was not correct in the absence of facts that establish otherwise or of any evidence that such was the transaction between assessee and the customers, therefore, demanding service tax on the same was not justified.
It was submitted that in the absence of any discrepancy in the documents and the goods, it is not permissible for the respondents to confiscate either the vehicle or the goods.
Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna Vs Joint Director of Income Tax (Inv.) & Anr (Supreme Court) In the facts of the present case, the respondents do not and cannot dispute that they have to refund the seized amount. Further, considerable delay and failure to make the payment constitutes and is inseparable from the cause of action as […]
Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) In the given case the HC have reached to the conclusion that no tax is leviable under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the ocean freight for the services provided by a person located in a non-taxable territory by way of […]
Neville Nadir Mistry Vs Board of Discipline (Appellate Authority) only a member of the Institute can file an appeal before the Appellate Authority if he is aggrieved by any order as provided under Section 21 A(3) or Section 21B(3) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. During the course of arguments, the complainant conceded that under […]
Computation of indexed cost of acquisition by the AO, taking the cost of acquisition at the cost price of 15.04.1976 without considering the provisions of section 55(2) clause (b) and taking the base cost inflation index at 406 is bad in law and we direct that Rs. 8,30,000/- must be taken as the cost of acquisition instead of Rs.1,122/-.. So we order accordingly.
Considering facts that as per Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, interest is payable on the delayed payment of tax and that as per the interest statement filed along with the impugned letter, dated 07.02.2020, there was delay in filing GSTR-3B and hence, interest on ‘cash set off’ and ‘ITC set off’ has been calculated and payment thereof has been asked for, recovery of interest against the petitioner, insofar it relates to `I.T.C. set off, shall remain stayed.
Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS u/s 194H and 194J on account of trade offers amounting to INR 834,92,63,976 provided by assessee to its distributors (HCL Info systems Ltd as well as other distributors) was not justified as there was absence of a principal-agent relationship thus, benefit extended to distributors could not be treated as commission under Section 194H and also, AO had not given any reasoning or finding to the extent that there was payment for technical service liable for withholding under Section 194J.
Lucknow Development Authority Vs ACIT (ITAT Lucknow) 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Therefore, at the end ITAT approved to stay the outstanding demand for a period of six months from the date of this order or till disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier, provided the assessee deposits the above noted amounts within the […]
On perusal of the record, it reveals that the Institute was negligent in the noncompliance of the directions of this Appellate Authority. The DC was required to seek extension of time from this Authority had there been any difficulty on any count to dispose of the matter within six months.
