Onora Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 276B of the Income Tax Act could be sustained without determination of the liability of the petitioners under section 201 of the Act? In the given case, it was […]
St. Barnabas Hospital Vs C.I.T (Exemption) (ITAT Ranchi) We note that the society trust was maintaining Pharmacy medical shop inside the hospital, which was for in-house consumption of medicines and treatment packages and for the urgent need of medicines to in-house patients. We note that the objects of the society were not doubted by the […]
CIT (E) Vs M/s Beant College of Engineering & Technology (Punjab and Haryana High Court) The Tribunal while dealing with the objection of the CIT(E) that the assessee had been claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and, therefore, should not have filed the application under Section 12AA of the Act, had noticed that […]
What was given to the retiring partners was money representing the value of their share in the partnership and no capital asset was transferred on the date of retirement. Therefore, no capital gains or profit could arise & section 45(4) had no application.
Shri Vinod Kumar Chugh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Section 50C could be invoked only when sale had taken place during the year. As the sale of vacant plot by assessee stood completed in the year 1991, there was no question of invoking the provision of section 50C for taxing the long term capital gains. […]
DCIT Vs Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Assessee was entitled for deduction u/s. 54F on the capital gains arising on the sale of depreciable assets being commercial flats computed in the manner laid down in Section 50 read with Section 48, 49 and 45 and section 50 was a deemed provision, therefore, its […]
Cenvat held that appellant is not required to reverse Cenvat credit as the capital goods have not been physically removed from the premises where they were initially installed.
Gayathri Pasarakayala Vs Disciplinary Committee (ICSI Appellate Authority) It is clear that the Disciplinary Committee has not followed the due procedure as prescribed statutorily as no opportunity of being heard was provided to Ms. Gayathri Pasarakayala on the question of quantum of punishment irrespective of her admission of guilt conveyed vide her aforementioned letter dated […]
Jai Laxmi Cement Co.(P.) Ltd. Vs Union Of India (Allahabad High Court) Rule 120A of the CGST Rules, 2017 provides that where a registered dealer submits a declaration electronically in FORM GST TRAN-1 within the time period specified in Rule 117, Rule 118, Rule 119 and Rule 120 he may revise such declaration once and […]
Observing that the adjudicating authority had not come to the conclusion that the product sold was entirely different and there was nothing on record to disbelief the Chartered Accountant’s certificate stating that both the products were one and the same, Madras High Court has allowed the appeal against the CESTAT Order denying SAD refund.
