M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs C.C.E. Kutch (Gandhidham) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that the Chartered/ Cost Accountant has certified that the goods were sold on FOR basis by the Appellant and the freight/ damages in transit was responsibility of Appellant till the goods reaches the doorstep of the Customers. Also we find that the consignment […]
evisional order passed by the Principal Commissioner in case of Anil Kapoor Film Co. Pvt. Ltd was upheld as AO had not made enquiries/verification, to satisfy himself with respect to creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transactions before framing the assessment.
Non-filing of Income Tax Return by itself would not mean that the complainant had no source of income and thus, no adverse inference can be drawn in this regard only because of absence of Income Tax Return.
Shri Rahul Sharma Vs M/s. Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) (i) Firstly, the Respondent, as discussed in para 12 to 14 above, has submitted that the proceedings initiated should be deemed infructuous as the complaint under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017;was not against him but against HP India who was the brand owner […]
In the light of the amendment made in the definition of the word ’employee’ as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act by Amending Act No. 47 of 2009 with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997, the benefit of the Payment of Gratuity Act was also extended to the teachers from 03.04.1997.
He held that the amount in question thus represented provision for meeting unascertained liabilities which was not allowable as deduction in the case of the assessee. He accordingly made a disallowance of Rs. 2,25,01,129/- on account of future development expenses and made addition to that extent to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 31.03.2016.
Assessee-GE group had carried out business through PE in India and GE India constituted DAPE in India for all overseas GE Group entities as LO were discharging vital responsibilities relating to finalization of commercial terms and a prominent involvement in the contract finalization process.
Where services provided by employees of BGIL were merely in the nature of routine support services, the same could not be termed as ‘FTS’ under Article 13 of the India UK DTAA, therefore, there was no requirement for assessee to deduct taxes from such payments in India u/s 195.
Assessee was not entitled to claim of deduction under section 54F as assessee had failed to deposit the unutilized amount of capital gains in the capital gains scheme account by the due date of filing of return of income.
M/s. Sangeetha Jewellery Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) In this writ appeal it is mainly contended that the dismissal of the writ petition is erroneous on the ground that the judgment in M/s Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) covers only the question regarding constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST […]
