Modfurn Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Green Signals Use of CA Certificate, Validating The Non-Transfer of tax liability to another, as Evidence It has been ruled that the Certificate of Chartered Accountant that categorically declares that the tax liability has not been turned over to another can […]
K.K. Construction Co. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) Conclusion: Dis allowance under section 40A(3) could not be made as identity of persons from whom purchases had been made was established; source of cash payments was clearly identifiable in form of withdrawals from assessee’s bank accounts and the said details were submitted before AO, thus, the genuineness […]
TDR is a capital asset, because it is inextricably linked with immovable property and also flows from transfer of immovable property. When, TDR is considered to be an immovable property/assets within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T.Act, then any right in such TDR is also needs to be considered as a asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in considering surplus from transfer of TDR under the head speculative business profits.
The inability to meet the contractual obligation by the assessee cannot be termed as an offence or infraction of law so as to deny the claim of the assessee by invoking the expression 1 to sec 37(1) of the Act.
Where AO did not pass any speaking order in disposing of assessee|s objections against notice under section 148, the assessment order passed subsequent to such notice, would be considered as bad in law and hence, the same was liable to be quashed.
M/s Bhagwati Colonizers Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) In the affidavit, the main reason cited by the assessee for the delay is that the copy of appellate order was received by the counsel who appeared before the Ld CIT(A), but the counsel never informed the assessee about the disposal of the appeal by Ld […]
Alfa Group Vs. The Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) There is no provision under the GST Act which mandates that the goods shall not be sold at prices below the MRP declared thereon. Further, there is nothing in Ext.P2 order that shows that, on account of the alleged wrong classification of the goods […]
Regional Director Vs Real Image LLP (NCLAT) Our Today’s article is about the Basic question that if an Indian LLP wants to process for the Amalgamation into a Indian Company, whether it required to obtain the registration under section 366 In the case of Regional Director, Southern Region, & Ors. V. Real Images LLP. If […]
Smt. Mamta Aggarwal Vs GLS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Authority determines the profiteered amount as Rs. 4,35,53,927/- (inclusive of applicable GST @ 12% or 8%) for the 1075 residential units for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 as per the details furnished by the DGAP vide Annexure-20 of his above Report. The above […]
Philips Electronics India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) The appellants, Philips Electronics India Ltd. are a 100% EOU (Software Technology Park Unit) are engaged in developing and export of software. No part of the output services are rendered to any client in India. The appellants have entered into various agreements with their […]
