Since the market value of immovable property sold by assessee had to be Rs.2,60,05,348/- and the purchase consideration together with costs towards obtaining vacant property should stand at Rs.2,26,00,000/-, therefore, the long term capital gain would be Rs.34,05,348/- as per section 50C and the brokerage costs incurred on sale consideration by the purchaser could not be taken into account for the purposes of Section 50C.
M/s. Kolte Patil I-Ven Townships Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present case is with respect to addition under the head ‘income from house property’ on the 32 unsold flats/shops by the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that assessee is in the business of Civil Engineers, Builders and Developers and had in […]
When an HUF’s residential house is sold, the capital gain should be invested for the purchase of only one residential house is an incorrect proposition. After all, the HUF property is held by the members as joint tenants. The members keeping in view the future needs in event of separation, purchase more than one residential building, it cannot be said that the benefit of exemption is to be denied under s. 54(1) of the IT Act.
Sh. Pranesh Pathak Vs M/s. Bhutani International Medicos (NAA) Central Government, on the recommendation of the GST Council, had reduced the GST rate on the product ‘Sanitary towels (pads) or sanitary napkins; tampons’ from 12% to Nil w.e.f. 27.07.2018, vide S. No. 146 of the Schedule to Notification No. 19/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 26.07.2018, which […]
Sh. Saurabh Gahoi Vs M/s Pinky Sales (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The Respondent had submitted that he was running an exclusive showroom of M/s Liberty Shoe Ltd.. which had given him the software which was being used for billing and he could not make any modification to this software since it was fully controlled by M/s […]
In re Thirumangalam Sengodan Kumarasamy, Propreitor of Christy Fried Gram Industry (GST AAR Tamilnadu) . The applicant has asked a query whether it will be still a composite supply even if the invoices are raised separately for supply of food and delivery of the food. It is seen from the bid document that payment will […]
In re M/s. Chennai Port Trust (GST AAR Tamilnadu) The amounts received on or after 01.07.2017 towards interest, late fee penalty relating to the services of lease/rent, due to delayed payment of consideration for those services rendered by the applicant before 01.07.2017, are liable to GST. FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. JWC Logistics Park Pvt Ltd (Bombay High Court) HC dismissed the Revenue’s Appeal before it by holding that the Container Freight Station (CFS) run by the respondent – assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act as an infrastructure facility. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / […]
Expenditure on renovation of building taken on lease had to be treated as capital expenditure in view of Expln. 1 to section 32(1), even if assessee was not owner of such building during the period of occupation.
The Larger Bench (LB) of Bombay HC rules in favour of Revenue, holds that cash refund u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not permissible when CENVAT Credit on inputs remains unutilized on account of closure of manufacturing unit or inability to utilize input credit.
