In re M/s. Specsmakers Opticians Private limited (GST AAR Tamilnadu) The value in respect of supply of goods i.e. Lenses, Frames, Sun Glasses, Contact Lenses as well as Reading Glasses, Complete spectacles by the applicant to distinct persons being branches outside the state of Tamil Nadu shall be the open market value of such supplies […]
Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import)- (CESTAT Mumbai) Computer having integrated CPU, VDU, but without physical keyboard (having virtual keyboard), and weighing less than 10 kg is classifiable as portable PC under TI 84713010 and not under TI 84715000 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Tribunal found no literature to support […]
In re MRF Limited (GST AAAR Tamilnadu) The order issued by the original authority for advance ruling is set aside. The appellant can avail Input tax credit of the full GST charged on the undiscounted supply invoice of goods/services by their suppliers. A proportionate reversal of the credit is not required to be done by […]
Revision under section 263 was invalid in case order of assessment merged with the order of Appellate CIT in its entirety as CIT did not have jurisdiction to revise such order of assessment in view of clause (c) of Expln. 1 to sub-section (1) of section 263.
Once the prior period income was held to be taxable, the prior period expenditure also should be allowed to be set off and assessee was not obliged in law to indicate any direct or indirect nexus between the prior period income and prior period expenditure.
AAP And Co. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The writ-application has been filed seeking quashing and setting aside of the press release dated 18th October 2018 to the extent that its para 3 purports to clarify that the last date for availing the input tax credit relating to the invoices issued during the […]
M/s. Key Components (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) it is clear that there is a total non-application of mind on the part of the A.O. while recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. He has recorded incorrect amount which escaped assessment. His conclusion was merely based on observations and information received from DIT […]
As a matter of fact, all infrastructure and process required for provision of bandwith services was always used and under the control of RJIPL, and the same was never given either to the assessee or to any other person availing the said services. We are persuaded to subscribe to the observations of the CIT(A) that as the process involved to provide the bandwith services was not a secret i.e IPR in the process was not owned/registered in the name of RJIPL, but was a standard commercial process that was followed by the industry players, therefore, the same could not be classified as a secret process which would have been required for characterizing the aforesaid payment made by the assessee to RJIPL as royalty under the India-Singapore DTAA.
Mere amendments in the Act would not override the provisions of Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). It was held that: on a final note, India’s change in position to the OECD Commentary cannot be a fact that influences the interpretation of the words defining royalty as they stand today.
High Court held that statement recorded during inquiry/investigation may have been recorded under compulsion and the same cannot be said to be voluntary statement.
