Raghava Constructions Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the proceedings of letter C.No. V/04/06/2019-Arrears, dated 31.07.2019, issued by 2nd respondent, pending disposal of WP.No.16885 of […]
In re M/s Strides Emerging Markets Limited (GST AAR Karnataka) The instant product, Nicotine Polacriliex Lozenge, is rightly classifiable under the heading 38.24. Accordingly the product is covered under Serial number 97 of Schedule III to Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and attracts GST at the rate of 18% (9% CGST, 9% SGST). […]
In re Malli Ramalingam Mothilal (GST AAAR Tamilnadu) Lower authority has held that the commodity manufactured by the appellant is a braided yarn made using a braiding machine and classified the Product under `CTH 5607- Twine, cordage, Ropes and cables, whether or not plaited or braided and whether or not impregnated, coated, covered or sheathed […]
Smt. Vatsala Asthana Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Regarding the payment made by the assessee before 31/03/2014, Hon7ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Shankar Lal Saini (supra) held that, where assessee, an individual deposited unutilized sale consideration in capital gains scheme within the due date of filing of belated tax return under section […]
Notice notice under section 148 being jurisdictional notice, issued to a dead person and legal representative not having waived the requirement of notice under section 148 and not having submitted to the jurisdiction of AO pursuant to impugned notice, provisions of section 292B would not get attracted and hence, notice under section 148 had to be treated as invalid.
Addition made by AO on account of suppression of profit and obtaining fictitious loss by assessee company by way of Client Code Modification (CCM) and on account of commission paid to brokers to obtain fictitious loss through CCM was to be deleted as AO had mechanically added amounts as income of assessee without verifying & furnishing
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) Allahabad High Court has held that there is no specification under Excise Rule 18 that for the purpose of rebate, goods need to be manufactured inside country. The Court held that the rule talks about any goods, which includes both manufactured inside the […]
Fresh information in the form of investigation report clearly demonstrated that initial disclosure regarding price of shares was not true and there was whole ‘live link’ between material in the form of investigation report and formation of belief that income had escaped assessment, therefore, reassessment notice was sustained as valid.
Ram Charitra Ram Harihar Prasad Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court) In so far as the present case is concerned, the document at Annexure -A series would confirm that the goods were tax paid and thus the exercise had to be regulated under the provisions of Section 129(1 )(b) which provides for a lenient […]
Any expenditure incurred for obtaining loan was allowable as revenue expenditure even if the loan was intended for acquiring a capital asset. Thus, upfront fee paid to bank was thus allowable.
