The issue in these writ petitions is whether multi-function devices (MFDs) are covered under the term ‘printers’. This dispute has arisen in view of the document Annexure P-12 by a clarification which was issued by way of Circular No.1 of 2019 dated 2.5.2019 as per which it was ‘clarified’ that multi-function devices which are basically printers with additional features like photocopy, scan, fax etc. are covered within the ambit of ‘printers’.
In re M/s Penguin Trading and Agencies Limited (GST AAAR Odisha) The Applicant has referred to Advance Ruling in the case of M/s Pioneer Partners, wherein the Haryana Authority for Advance Ruling held that “The services for the right to use minerals including its exploration and evaluation, as per Sr. No 257 of the annexure […]
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is correct in adopting land value of adjacent area, just because the colony is adjacent to a road, which has a higher guideline value is justified in law and in ignoring the specific guideline value fixed by the Government in respect of specific colony or flat?
GST dept to permit the Assessee to file or revise where already filed incorrect TRAN-1 either electronically or manually statutory Form(s) TRAN-1 on or before 30th November 2019. The Respondents are at liberty to verify genuineness of claim of Petitioners but nobody shall be denied to carry forward legitimate claim of CENVAT/ITC on the ground of non-filing of TRAN-I by 27.12.2017.
In re H.P. Sales India Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAAR Maharashtra) The Appellate authority did not find any reason to amend our original order dated 17.02.2019, wherein it was held that the supply of the Electronic along with the other consumables comprising of blanket, photo imaging plate, binary ink developer, HP imaging oil, blanket web and […]
Whether the supply of labour force/ work without material by a sub-contractor to main contractor, who is engaged in supply of ‘works contract’ service, also falls under ‘works contract’ services?
On analysing section 164(2) it was concluded that the same operates prospectively and a director would not demit office in terms of Section 167(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 on account of a disqualification incurred under Section 164(2) for conduct prior to the amendments to the Act introduced from May 7, 2018. Moreover, Central government had no power to cancel or deactivate the Director Identification Number (DIN) on account of a director suffering a disqualification under Section 164(2).
On perusal of the impugned order, we find it is unintelligible and we could not decipher what has been decided by the High Court. We, accordingly, set aside the order and remit the matter to the High Court. We request the High Court to pass an order which we can understand.
ITAT Jaipur ruling on Amrapali Exports Vs DCIT case. Can deduction u/s 10AA be claimed on enhanced profits after disallowance u/s 69C? Read now.
Royal Rich Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) We notice that during the original assessment as well as the remand proceedings, the assessee was given ample opportunities to produce the share investors which the assessee failed to do. The Assessing Officer thereupon issued the summons to the share purchasers calling upon them to […]
