Follow Us:

Judiciary

Only ‘mistake apparent from record’ can be rectified U/s. 254 (2)

April 3, 2019 4260 Views 0 comment Print

High Court faulted the Tribunal’s decision of reducing the penalty as a ‘way to bypass the minimum limit’ and the Tribunal was in error in granting the relief, the same does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record so as to enable the Tribunal to revisit its decision

TDS deductible on Salary paid to nuns, sisters for Teaching in School

April 3, 2019 6519 Views 0 comment Print

Payment of salaries made to nuns, sisters, priests or fathers for rendering their services as Teachers in schools which receive Grant-in-aid from the State Government under the Grant-in-Aid Schemes and bound by the Canon Law were liable for tax deduction under section 192 as neither Income Tax Department nor State Government had anything to do with the religious character of the Institution, might be Teachers or Nuns or Missionaries and therefore, they could not take a stand for not making the tax deduction at source in view of the Canon Law.

Customary bonus not attract provision of section 36(1)(ii)

April 3, 2019 12360 Views 0 comment Print

DCIT Vs. M/s. Enam Securities Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) it is duly noted that the assessee has submitted that the outstanding bonus was customary bonus and not filing u/s. 36(1)(ii) to come under the ambit of disallowance u/s. 43B(C). The assessee has quoted several case laws for the proposition that the customary bonus do not […]

Section 14A: Shilpa Shetty Kundra gets Tax Relief

April 3, 2019 1698 Views 0 comment Print

Shilpa Shetty Kundra Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is observed that the assessee has already offered suo-moto disallowance of Rs.2.34 Lacs u/s 14A in her computation of income, which has been overlooked by the lower authorities. Another undisputed fact that emerges is that disallowance against average investments which have actually yielded exempt income during the […]

Salary reimbursement cannot be disallowed for Non-Deduction of TDS

April 3, 2019 2319 Views 0 comment Print

Pr. CIT Vs. M/s ITD Cemindia JV (Bombay High Court) The employees and personnel deputed by the company giving such workers on loan to the assessee company continued to be the employer, the assessee merely reimbursed the expenditure in terms of salary structure of the employees to the employer company. There was, therefore, no question […]

No profiteering as tax rate in GST era increased to 28% from earlier 14.75%

April 3, 2019 828 Views 0 comment Print

Kerala Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case and the invoices placed on record that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01-07-2017 instead the rate of tax in […]

AAAR have no jurisdiction to determine place of supply of services or goods or both

April 3, 2019 1788 Views 0 comment Print

in order to determine which levy, whether CGST and SGST, or IGST will be imposed on the said supply of photography services of the Appellant, we will have to determine the place of supply. Then only, we can determine the nature of levy, whether CGST and SGST or IGST, which will be imposed on the said supply of service of the Appellant. Since, we do not have jurisdiction to determine the place of supply of services or goods or both

GST on construction of office building for APSFC

April 3, 2019 1827 Views 0 comment Print

The applicant sought for Advance Ruling on applicable rate of tax under GST for construction of office building at Vijayawada for Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation. The activity of the applicant under the said agreement with M/S APSFC is a Composite Supply of Works Contract as defined in clause 119 of Section 2 of Central Goods and Services Act, 2017.

No Anti-Profiteering if base price remained same even after tax reduction

April 3, 2019 846 Views 0 comment Print

Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs Ms. Rosata Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It was from the Invoices submitted clear that the base price of the product Vitrified Tiles Super Nano Plus (HSN Code 69072100) per box was Rs. 294.50 prior to 15.11.2017 and had remained the same even after GST rate reduction […]

Bogus share capital: Relief cannot be given merely on basis of Ration Card, Voter ID etc

April 3, 2019 882 Views 0 comment Print

ITO Vs M/s Yadu Steels & Power Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Under Section 68 onus is upon assessee to prove three ingredients, i.e., identity and creditworthiness of credit entries. As to how onus can be discharged would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. It is expected of both sides – assessee and Ld.AO, to […]

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031