The AO has relied on sub-rule (1) of section 37BA for denying the benefit of TDS during the year under consideration. This part of the Rule provides that the credit for TDS shall be given to the person to whom payment has been made or credit has been given on the basis of information relating to TDS furnished by the deductor. What is material for sub-rule (1) is the beneficiary of credit for the TDS, being the person to whom payment has been made, which in the instant case is the assessee.
In re M/s Jairaj Ispat Limited. (GST AAR Karnataka) The Char-Dolochar/Dolochar (waste emerging during the process of manufacturing Sponge Iron) supplied by the Applicant is classifiable under Tariff Item 26190090 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and therefore, in view of Entry 28 of Schedule III of Notification 01/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017, […]
Madras High Court passes an interim order against AAAR on plea of RWAs to charge GST only on the amount in excess of Rs.7500/- but not on the entire amount.
The issue under consideration is whether TDS will be granted in the year in which assessee has recorded the corresponding income even if the deposit of TDS is in next financial year?
Mohd. Sahil Jakir Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Referring to provisions of section 129 of the CGST Act, it was submitted that the same do not contemplate detention of goods on any ground other than the grounds stated therein and that, undervaluation of an invoice cannot be a ground for detention of goods […]
Shri Dinesh Khodidas Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmadabad) The issue under consideration is whether A.O. is correct in referring the matter to DVO to find FMV by rejecting valuation report submitted by assessee? In the present case, assessee sold a land along with others co-owners. It had submitted the valuation report as on 1-4-1981 of […]
In the given case the issue under consideration is that the amount claimed as capital receipts, by the assessee are taxable and have to be treated as income or not?
The legal heirs, in such a case, are neither liable to pay the fine or to undergo imprisonment. However, they have a right to challenge the conviction of their predecessor only for the purpose that he was not guilty of any offence.
Ramji Bharti Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court) The constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others AIR 1967 S.C. 1910 held that it is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules by administrative instruction, but if the rules are silent on any […]
Where assessee had filed return under section 153A, which was accepted by revenue, therefore, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be imposed for concealment of income because return filed under section 153A would be deemed to be return filed under section 139.
