In re Shiva Writing Company Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR West Bangal) In the Rate Notification ball point pens, classified under HSN 9608, are included under Sl No. 232 of Schedule II under the description: pens other than fountain pens, stylograph pens. The same Notification also mentions fountain pens, stylograph pens under Sl No. 447 of […]
Respondent had not increased the discounted per M2price of the above product which had remained Rs. 374.74/- before and after the tax reduction, as was evident from both the invoices issued by him before and after the tax reduction and therefore, the benefit of tax reduction has duly been passed on to the customers by the Respondent. Hence, the allegation of profiteering is not established
Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering Vs M/s. Asian Paints Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) From the invoices referred, it is evident that the Respondent had maintained the same base price post reduction in the rate of tax w.e.f. 15.11.2017, resulting in reduction in the cum-tax price from Rs. 175.40/- to Rs. 161.70/- on the product […]
State Level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s Ramraj Handlooms (NAA) In this case there was no reduction in the rate of tax on ‘Little Stars Dhoti’ w.e.f. 01-07-2017 and that the rate of tax in the Post-GST era has also been increased from CST @ 2% to IGST @ 5%. therefore, the allegation of […]
Madhav Gopaldas Shah Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) In a Bogus GST Billing Case Submission of learned senior advocate for the applicant that the applicant is a young person pursuing studies in Chartered Accountancy and was employed under the co-accused Hitendra Shah. . Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that […]
Reassessment order passed by Assessing Officer without disposing of objections raised by assessee to issuance of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by a separate order, was not valid and thus, was liable to be quashed.
Since both the employee’s and employer’s contribution to Provident Fund was covered under the amended provision of section 43B, therefore Employees contribution to Provident fund (EPF), beyond the due date stipulated under the Provident Fund Act but before the due date of filing return of income under section 139(1) could not be disallowed by invoking section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Delhi rules on the treatment of surrendered sales outside books, stating only profit is taxable, not the entire sales. Full judgment details.”
Kay Dee Industries Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi) Since it was not the first year of the payment of commission to the party and the recipient of the commission income was also not related party in terms of section 40A(2), therefore, revenue was only authorized to see whether the expenditure was laid out or by the […]
Ms Great India Steel Fabricatros Vs C.C.E. & S.T. Panchkula (CESTAT Chandigarh) Considering the fact that on introduction of Central GST Act, 2017, Section 142 deals the situation which directs the authorities to sanction all the refund claims in cash, therefore, no authority can sanction refund claim to be credited in Cenvat credit account. In […]
