MCP Enterprises Vs. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) Writ petitions are disposed by upholding the retrospective operation of Section 42(3) of the KVAT Act, but declaring that the power to re-open assessments under the said provision cannot be exercised in relation to such assessments where the period for which the assessee concerned is obliged […]
National Anti-Profiteering Authority finds Adani M2k Project LLP guilty of not passing on GST benefits. Rs. 1,25,33,555/- profiteered. Legal order details.
Assessee who was Resident but not ordinarily resident in India was entitled to claim the credit of both state and federal taxes as per section 91 however, tax credit in respect of foreign income tax was restricted to actual income tax liability in India, in respect of income on which taxes had been so paid abroad.
Exemption available to ‘supply of farm labour’ services falling under Chapter heading 9986 under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 09/2017- Integrated Tax (rate) dated 28.06.2017 is not available to supply of manpower services falling under SAC 99851.
Services of pure labour contract supplied by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of a civil structure or any other original works under PMAY is exempted from GST vide Entry 10 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended).
AAR held that Fortified Rice Kernels FRK manufactured and supplied by the applicant is classifiable under HSN 19049090 and attracts GST @ 18% (SGST 9 % + CGST 9 %).
Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) was allowable in case money was unable to be recovered due to inability or insolvency of the debtor to pay. In all other cases, the claim for allowance should have to be sustained under Section 37(1) which required that the expenditure (not being of a capital nature) should have been wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the business. Advances for salary and deposits for lease premises had been written off and the same were laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business thus, allowable under Section 37(1).
Madhuri Doulatram Choitram Vs Lachmandas Tulsiram Nayar (HUF) (Bombay High Court) It is one thing to say that a member of the family other than, or in the absence of, a Karta, may be permitted to prosecute the suit on account of special circumstances of a given case. And a completely different thing to claim […]
In a case where the assessee had wrongly deposited IGST as CGST, the Jharkhand High Court has quashed the letter saddling petitioner company with liability to pay short paid IGST along with interest. The High Court however directed the petitioner to deposit IGST and to claim refund of CGST or adjust the amount wrongly deposited under CGST for future liability of CGST.
The proceedings of the sixth meeting of the Board of Directors of ‘Tata Sons Limited’ held on Monday, 24th October, 2016 so far as it relates to removal and other actions taken against Mr. Cyrus Pallonji Mistry (11th Respondent) is declared illegal and is set aside.
