It can decisively be concluded that the question posed by the Appellant i.e. whether the GST is applicable on the Investment Advisory and Management Fees collected from the overseas Investors, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Advance Ruling, and hence cannot be decided by the Advance Ruling Authority
Supreme Court of India admits appeal but upholds the denial of anticipatory bail for P. Chidambaram in the INX Media money laundering case, citing the gravity of the economic offense.
The issue under consideration is whether the depreciation on purchase of New Weaving Looms allowed in case of assessee?
M/s Jubilant Life Science Limited Vs Additional Director General (Adj) (CESTAT Delhi) Following the decision of the High Court of Orissa in the case of Tata Steel v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 7917 of 2009],wherein the Explanation to Rule 10(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, […]
Chogori India Retail Ltd Vs Union of India And Ors. (Delhi High Court) This Court would not like to get into the issue whether in fact the Petitioner faced difficulty. The transitional credit (TC) available in the account of the Petitioner is a substantial sum. It is not denied by the Respondent that the Petitioner […]
Wherein condonation of delay sought was not for filing the petition under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, 1996 for the first time but for the delay of 8 days in re-presenting the petition beyond the date fixed after it was returned under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code before the District Judge,
Sh. Mohit Arora Vs M/s Lodha Developers Limited (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It is established from the perusal of the above facts of the case that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondents as they have profiteered an amount of Rs. 1,90,04,456/- inclusive of GST @ 12% […]
The applicant has raised a question, whether separate registration is required in the State of Karnataka for the work contract awarded to him in the State of Karnataka? In this regard we observe that the question raised by the applicant is outside the purview of this authority. The authority for Advance Ruling is created under SGST/UTSGST Act and thus ruling pronounced are applicable within the particular state only, it is for this reason that questions relating to requirement of GST registration in another state is beyond the jurisdiction of this authority and hence no ruling can be given.
The issue under consideration is whether Non-furnishing of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment made the entire assessment u/s 147 invalid in law?
Shri Kailash Chand Soni Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) The issue under consideration is whether the addition on account of disallowance of interest expenses which are in accordance the provisions of section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified in law? In the present case, the assessee has taken unsecured loans from various parties […]
