etitioners have claimed tax input credit on the basis of fake invoices hence Writ Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- only.29. The cost amount be deposited with the Rajasthan High Court Legal Services Authority within four weeks of the date of this order and proof thereof, be submitted with the Registrar (Judicial). If the proof of depositing of amount is not submitted, let the matter be listed before the Court for appropriate course of action.
Payment to the film distributors is not subject to TDS and therefore disallowing expense by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) is not justified
Shri Shantilal B. Parekh Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) BOGUS PURCHASES – On the basis of information, huge racket of hawala dealers involved in issuing bogus invoices to allow the traders to claim tax credit was discovered. Assessee was alleged to be one of the beneficiary to who dealt with certain parties engaged in hawala racket. […]
In case of warranty for the supply of free spare parts, once the replacement was made and the defective part was returned to the manufacturer, whether sales tax would be payable on such a transaction relating to the spare part, based on a credit note, which may be issued for the said purpose to dealer by the manufacturer was referred to Larger Bench to decide.
Payment made by assessee to SEBI under consent order was an allowable business expenditure under section 37(1) and the same was not in the nature of the penalty for infraction of the law.
I am of the view that the goods detained shall be released to the petitioner on furnishing bank guarantee in terms of the order passed under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner shall file an appeal within a period of one month.
Where assessee had deposited sale consideration amount in the Escrow Account as a security in respect of future liabilities of the company/ transferor, the year of taxability, irrespective of the delay in making investment in REC Bonds on account of uncertainty involved for receiving the amount, the year of taxability was year of receipt and therefore, assessee was eligible for deduction under section 54EC.
In re Ms. Umadevi Kamalkumar Patni (GST AAR Maharashtra) For an applicant, it is mandatory as per section 97(1) read with Rule 104 of the CGST/MGST Act to pay applicable fee of Rs. 5000/- each under SGST and CGST Act to be deposited in the manner as provided under Section 49 of the Act. If […]
The Applicant Company is engaged in manufacturing and supply of sand and a range of construction materials. They obtained mining rights from the Government of Karnataka for quarrying minerals from the mines located at different locations within the state of Karnataka.
What is the classification for the services received by M/ s Robo Quarries Private Limited from the state of Karnataka for which Royalty is being paid by M/s Robo Quarries Private Limited? Whether the said service can be classified under the heading 9973 specifically under 997337 as licensing services for the right to use minerals including its exploration and evaluation or any other service under notification No 11/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 ?
