Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Johnson & Johnson Private Limited (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Profiteered amount is determined as Rs. 2,30,40,74,132/- as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the above Rules as has been computed vide Annexure-13 of the Report dated 24.06.2019. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce his prices commensurately in terms […]
In re Chellasamy Nadar Deivarajan (Mahalakshmi Store) (AAR Tamilnadu) Whether the unbranded mixture of flour of pulses and grams i.e. leguminous vegetables and cereal flours fall under the HSN Code 1106 and 1102 respectively though blending of leguminous flour added with very small quantity of rice flour or maize flour (without adding salt or any […]
In re Papaka Herbs & Spices private Limited (GST AAR Tamil Nadu) Whether the Rice Husk Board manufactured by the applicant comprising of Natural Fibre (Rice Husk Powder); Calcium carbonate, recycling waste and other processing aid as well as PVC resin, wherein PVC acts only as a bonding agent would remain classified as wood and […]
In re East Hooghly Agro Plantation Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAAR West Bangal) On examination of samples produced by the Appellant during the course of hearing it is clear that as the principal characteristic of tarpaulin is water proofing. unless the HDPE woven fabric is laminated it cannot be used to make tarpaulin. The process of […]
In re T P Roy Chowdhury & Company Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAAR West Bangal) There is no dispute that raw whole yellow peas are agricultural produce covered under serial no. 45 of the Rate Notification and are exempted goods. However, this particular consignment of raw whole yellow peas was harvested in foreign land and the […]
Universal Cables Ltd Vs CIT (Supreme Court) A ‘tax refund’ is a refund of taxes when the tax liability is less than the tax paid. As per the old section an assessee was entitled for payment of interest on the amount of taxes refunded pursuant to an order passed under the Act, including the order […]
Deduction under section 24(b) and computation of capital gains under section 48 of the Act are altogether covered by different heads of income i.e., income from ‘house property’ and ‘capital gains’. Further, a perusal of both the provisions makes it unambiguous that none of them excludes operative of the other.
Provision for post-retirement medical benefit of employees had been created on the basis of actuarial calculation on a scientific basis and liability was not contingent but definite, accordingly, no disallowance could be made.
Hemant M Mehta HUF Vs A.C.I.T. (ITAT Mumbai) In case of bogus purchases where sales are accepted, the addition is required to be made only to the extent of difference between the GP declared by the assessee on normal purchases vis a vis bogus purchases. Respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court […]
Keva Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that there is no dispute that the assessee company had acquired the shares of a foreign company from its directors. We also find the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act refers to transaction of acquisition of any property being shares of a company not […]
