It is evident that the benefit of first proviso would be allowed only if the condition as stipulated in second proviso is satisfied. In other words, the stamp value on the date of agreement to sell shall be considered as full value of consideration only if the amount of consideration or part of such consideration was received by the assessee through banking channel on or before the date of agreement for transfer. This issue, therefore, needs detailed factual verification.
Lanco solar Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner, Central Tax, Central Excise, Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Delhi CESTAT held that the ab initio exemption provided under the SEZ provisions, having overriding effect on the service tax provision. Under such position of law, a notification under service tax cannot restrict or provide a time limit for grant of refund […]
Myres Tyre Supply (India) Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) In addition to writ with High Court appellant had also moved an application for refund of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed under the TNVAT Act and this application was without prejudice to their rights under section 140(3) of the TNGST Act. The […]
Chandimata Iron Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court) Since the order under challenge in this petition is appealable, we permit the petitioner to pursue such appeal for which, we are informed limitation period has yet not expired. However, considering the facts of the case, the goods of the petitioner which are in the nature […]
SPR & RG constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The issue under consideration is whether the reasons for reopening of assessment u/s 147 are justified? The reasons recorded for reopening are on the basis of the audited accounts of the assessee i.e., specifically perusal of Schedule 30 of the profit and loss account and […]
The issue under consideration is that, when two views are possible and A.O. adopt one of the view and passed his order accordingly. But that view is not acceptable by PCIT, in such case can PCIT adopt its one of the other views and call the order of A.O. the erroneous?
The issue under consideration is whether the advance received towards sale of property falls within the meaning of commercial and business purpose and can be treated as deemed dividend without considering the true nature of the transaction?
Milk crumb was marketable and hence assessee-cadbury was liable to pay excise duty for clearing goods without payment of duty as revenue neutrality could never be ground for not demanding the duty on the excisable goods in the form and manner they were being cleared by assessee.
Where shares are held by an assessee as stock-in-trade, the earning of exempt dividend income on the same would trigger the applicability of Sec. 14A of the Act. Aoordingly shares which were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade were to be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance under Sec. 14A of the Act.
This Court does not find any substance in the arguments of the petitioner, when they say that the investigation and the proceedings now initiated is one, which hit by Section 6(2)(1)(b) of the CGST Act of 2017. What has also to be appreciated is the fact that there is a clear distinction between a proceeding drawn for the demand of tax evaded by the petitioner-establishment and the investigation be conducted by the Department of the DG, GST Intelligence Wings in respect of an offence committed by an establishment by way of using bogus and fake invoices and illegally availing ITCs, which the petitioner-establishment otherwise was ineligible.
