Court has no hesitation to hold that the Benami Amendment Act, 2016, amending the Principal Benami Act, 1988, enacted w.e.f. 1st November, 2016, i.e. the date determined by the Central Government in its wisdom for its enforcement; cannot have retrospective effect.
In re Venkata Rao Tirupathi (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh) Whether section 77(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 is squarely applicable to section 9 of the GST compensation cess Act, 2017 (Compensation to States) in terms of payment of tax in a wrong head? The applicant sought Advance Ruling in an issue of applicability of interest […]
Where assessee placed sufficient documentary evidences before A.O. to prove genuineness of the transaction of sale of shares such as copies of bank statement, Demat account, share purchase documents and share certificate., etc., and no material had been brought on record against assessee to disprove the claim of assessee, addition made under section 68 on account of bogus long-term capital gain on sale of shares could not be sustained.
Chandu Laxman Chavan Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) While levying penalty, the Assessing Officer invoked only the charge of “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”. It is evident that while recording satisfaction the Assessing Officer was not clear in his mind as to which charge u/s. 271(1) (c) is to be invoked for initiating penalty. The ambiguity […]
Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Vs Supreet Singh Bakshi (Patiala House Courts) In the case in hand, applicant / accused is stated to be the proprietor of M/s. Swift Enterprises, whereas, his father and brother are stated to be the Directors of M/s. Megabyte I.T. Pvt. Ltd. and his employee Rakesh Kumar Gupta is stated […]
In re Kuldeep Singh Butola (GST AAR Uttarakhand) (i) The services rendered by GMVN is covered under Serial No. 257 of Annexure appended to Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 (amended from time to time) as Licensing services for the right to use minerals including its exploration and evaluation. (ii) The service namely Licensing […]
Whether the penalty levied by CIT(A) u/s 272A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified in law? Penalty u/s 272A is not justified for Assessee having exempt income u/s 10(23C).
Where amount received by assessee in excess of advance was on account of compensation for extinction of its right to sue the owner, the receipt was a Capital receipt not chargeable to tax.
Bank guarantee commission was not in the nature of commission paid to an agent but it was in the nature of bank charges for providing one of the banking service, therefore, the charge collected by bank for such service did not amount to commission within the meaning of section 194H and such commission could not be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia).
In re M/s. Robo Silicon Pvt Ltd (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh) What is the classification for the services received by M/s Robo Silicon Private Limited from the state of Andhra Pradesh for which Royalty is being paid by Robo Silicon Private Limited? Whether the said service can be classified under the heading 9973 specifically under […]
