M/s. O.M.S. Sivajothi Mills Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai has held that redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is an option in lieu of confiscation and hence, both (confiscation and redemption fine) cannot run simultaneously. It observed that when the order on confiscation remained unchallenged, and when even […]
Sanatan Dharam Shiksha Sammittee Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Delhi) t is pertinent to note that from the perusal of the by-laws of the society, all the clauses are general clauses which do not point out any charitable activity. In fact, from the objectives the society will purchase and sell immovable property as per society’s needs. […]
In re M/s Parmod Kumar Singala (GST AAR Rajasthan) 1. What will be the treatment of claiming of Input Tax Credit under Section 16 of the GST Act in regard to by-product Cotton Seed Oil Cake which is taxable at 0%? As per Section 17(2) of GST Act, 2017 the amount of credit shall be […]
As per clear reading of Sub Section (1) of Section 16 and sub section (1) of Section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017, it is clear that a registered person is entitled to take credit of input tax charged on supply of goods or services or both to him which are used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of his business only.
We find from the provision that the Settlement Commissioner is free to grant further time for payment, under Section 245H(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 5. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not necessary to relegate the appellant to the Settlement Commissioner for enlargement of time, since the payments have already been made.
In re Dhirajlal Velji Atha (HUF) (GST AAR Jharkhand) 1. What is the classification of service provided by the State of Jharkhand to the petitioner for which Royalty is being paid in light of the notifications mentioned below? Ans. – The services for the right to use minerals including its exploration and evaluation, as per Sr. […]
Where assessee was not required to maintain any books of account and there was no mechanism to report the investment in the tax return, the said investment could not be held as undisclosed investment and more so, undisclosed income so defined in section 271AAB, therefore, investment so found in purchase of Villa could not be termed as undisclosed income within the meaning of “undisclosed income” and penalty levied thereon was liable to be set aside.
M H Khanusiya Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Levy of Entry Tax at the rate of 12.5% treating Excavators as motor vehicles and/or at par with the motor vehicles is hereby held to be illegal, discriminatory, violative of Article 304(a) of the Constitution of India and against the object and purpose of the […]
Sadhana R. Jain Vs CBDT & Anr (Bombay High Court) Reading of the CBDT Circular dt. 28-3-2017, it would clearly emerge that while providing for a limited window, in cases where payments were made through banking channels but the deposit was made by the bank in the Government revenue few days after 30-11-2016 to condone […]
M/s. Hubergroup India Private Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Gujarat High Court has allowed a writ petition filed against denial of refund of Central Sales Tax (CST) to an EOU in a case when the inputs procured from the DTA were used in the production of goods cleared in the DTA during […]
