Acuity Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, the subject premise in respect of which the assessee has claimed the rental expenses has been taken on lease by the assessee. Though, in the leave and license agreement, it is mentioned that it has been taken on lease for the use of residence of directors/employees, […]
Manipal Universal Learning Pvt. Limited Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore) Brief issues that require consideration in this case or as to Whether VSAT (Very Small Aperture Terminal) fee (both one-time fee for supply of goods and actual usage charges) charged for supply of VSAT equipment is liable for service tax under “franchise […]
Kalpaka Distrbutors Pvt Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that since it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein did attempt to upload the necessary details in the system maintained by the respondents, […]
Re-assessment even if in case where return was not scrutinized before the income chargeable to tax had escaped before acceptance originally could not be made unless AO has reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped, therefore, for mere verification or for fishing inquiry, reopening of assessment was not permissible.
Section 206AA does not override provisions of section 90(2) and in case of payment made to non-resident, assessee correctly applied rate of tax prescribed under concerned DTAAs and not as per section 206AA because provisions of the DTAAs were more beneficial and DTAA acquired primacy in such case.
Gujarat High Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Jai Prakash Motwani, when penalty is imposed on partnership firm, penalty cannot be imposed on its partner.
Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Punjab & Haryana High Court) In the given case the petitioner is manufacturing lead ingots, red oxide and grey oxide. On 27.03.2018, officials of Respondent/GST Directorate searched premises of the Petitioner and during search seized record. The Respondent time to time directed […]
In our view, these circumstance, if considered in conjunction with total absence of ill motive, mala fide intent or animus to cause wrongful gain to the importers and the petitioner, lead to a legitimate inference that the act on the part of the petitioner was the result of negligence and carelessness. It falls short of misconduct.
In re Sunchirin Autoparts India Pvt Ltd. (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) Classification of Air Conditioner House Assembly (suction / discharge) used as part of Air Conditioner Compressor and Applicable tax rate for the classification. The product ‘Air Conditioner Hose Assembly’ as described in the application will merit classification under Chapter Heading 4009 of the GST […]
Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the instant case, the assessee has offered Explanation as why the transaction of loss of security was claimed as business loss. This Explanation has not found to be false by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee substantiated the Explanation by way of filing relevant documents […]
