Appellants are not liable to penalty on wrong availment of GTA services up to the customer’s premises because it was an interpretation issue and was settled by the Apex Court in the year 2018in the case of Ultratech and therefore no intention to evade service tax can be imputed on the appellant.
The Respondents are directed to implement the Incentive Scheme as amended up-to-date with a discretion to modify the scheme so as to bring it in line with the new tax structure under the General Sales Tax scheme, but without reducing or restricting the benefits as conferred upon the Petitioner under the Incentive Scheme within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this Judgment.
CIT- LTU Vs M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Assessee provided electricity generated by its captive power generating plant to its another units, then while computing deduction under section 80-IA of Income Tax Act, 1961, the value of electricity provided to another unit was to be at the rate for which electricity distribution companies […]
Kalpana Stores Vs State of Tripura & others (Tripura High Court) Under sub-section (1) of Section 129 thus the authorities enjoy the power of detention of goods in transit if it is found that the same is in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules. The detention can also be made of […]
Pr. CIT Vs Gujarat State Petronet Limited (Gujarat High Court) The language of Section 14A of the Act is plain and clear. Before invoking Rule 8D, the Assessing Officer is obliged to indicate that having regard to the accounts of the assessee, he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee […]
Rasai Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Admittedly, there has been an omission on the part of the assessee to disclose the LTCG on sale of the shops in its return of income for the year under consideration. However, at the same time, we cannot remain oblivious of the bonafides of the assessee, which […]
DCIT Vs Genuine Seeds Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Pune) The CIT(A) while deciding the issue in the present case had in turn, relied on the decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. (supra), which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court. Consequently, we hold that growing of hybrid seeds in […]
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that interest on the delayed payment has been levied, petitioner is entitled to adjust the same for input tax credit and can be paid in cash, however GST portal do not allow the same unless and until entire cash is paid.
Smt. Kalpana Ashwin Shah Vs ACIT and Ors. (Bombay High Court) 1. The Petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax, requiring the Petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed tax pending Appeal against the order of the assessment subject to which the remaining recovery […]
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was not an ordinary resident without appreciating that the amendment brought in Section 6(6) by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1.4.2004 was clarificatory in nature and had to be given retrospective effect as communicated by the Circular No. 7 of 2003 issued by the CBDT?
