Reassessment after period of four years on the ground that assessee had claimed excess deduction under Section 80IB(10) was not valid where assessee had made true and full disclosure and had consciously made only a proportionate claim under Section 80IB(10), which was rightly allowed by AO at the time of original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3).
Whether the contract from Nagpur Environmental Services Ltd (NESL) Nagpur (a 100% subsidiary of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur) for providing services for the management of Non-Network Tanker with the help of GPRS system at Nagpur would be exempt from GST since it falls under the various exempt services in the article 243 W of the constitution of India as well as services rendered to a local authority,
In re Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (GST AAAR Odisha) Appellant satisfies the requirement of being a Public funded research institution as provided in Notification No-51/1996-Customs, dated 23.07.1996 read with Notification No-43/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 and ruled accordingly for being entitled to the exemption from levy of IGST on import of specified goods as […]
Where no satisfaction had been recorded by the AO for initiation of penalty in the assessment order the same cannot invite the assessee to penalty under section 271(1)(c)
Recently in the DCIT vs. Compass Group (India) Support Services P. Ltd. ITAT Chennai decided on 12.06.2019, one of the ground taken by Revenue in the appeal was that the Learned CIT(A) has erred in providing relief to the assessee by holding that the appellant was entitled to depreciation on non compete fee as an intangible asset under Section 32( l)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred in short as the Act).
M/s Contemporary Targett Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-I (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Facts is not under dispute that the tooth brushes manufactured and supplied by the appellant were cleared either in bulk form or combo pack or in naked condition that means without any retail packing. Goods were supplied to tooth paste manufacturer who in turn […]
Yashodhara Shroff Vs. Union of India (Karnataka High Court) (a) It is held that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The said provision is not manifestly arbitrary and also does not fall within the scope of the doctrine of proportionality. Neither does the said provision violate Article […]
Pr. CIT Vs Adamine Construction (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The material on record in the form of the orders of the lower appellate authorities disclosed that both the assessee and later the share applicants (upon receiving notice under Section 131 of the Act) had produced documentary proof. These included the assessments and income-tax returns […]
Issuing of show cause notice in a template-like manner cannot be challenged on basis that it was not clear as to whether the same had been issued for concealing particulars of income’ or furnishing of inaccurate particulars’ of such income merely by reason of mistake or defect i.e., mistake or defect of issuing it in a template and not scoring of the relevant ground and leaving out the applicable ground.
Shri Navneet Gupta Vs M/s Bharti Telemedia Pvt Ltd. (NAA) It was submitted that the tax incidence on DTH services prior to GST implementation was subjected to Entertainment Tax which ranged between 10% to 25% in various States, in addition to 15% Service Tax, whereas on introduction of GST, the tax rate came down to […]
