CIT Vs Sinochem India co. Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The purchase of intellectual property rights by the assess are not disputed. Consideration paid is also not disputed. The nature and character of the intellectual property rights, as noticed in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), are again not disputed. The intellectual […]
It was clear that despite knowing the fact that Managing Director (MD) was not allowed under the CWA Act, the Respondent had accepted the position of MD and also protecting the same.
Whether following two categories of products will be classifiable under Entry 24 of Schedule IV of Notification No. 1/2017Central Taxes (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 liable to CGST at 14% or Entry 97 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017 – Central Taxes (Rate) liable to CGST at 9%?
Origins Build-Tech Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Issue- The learned CIT(A)-8 is unjustified & erred in law by confirming the imposing of late filing levy by ACIT [CPC-TDS) of Rs.30800/- u/s 234E determined to be payable by processing TDS statement u/s 200A, without issuing show cause notice. The late fee u/s 234E is penal in nature […]
In re Bharat Agro (GST AAAR Uttar Pradesh) We modify the Ruling given by AAAR, Uttar Pradesh as per their Order No.5 dated 21-05-2018 and hold that the Product in question i.e. ‘Canned Pineapple Slices dipped in sugar syrup’ is covered under the Tariff item No. 0811 FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF […]
Any inclusion or exclusion of comparables per se cannot be treated as a question of law unless it is demonstrated to the Court that the Tribunal or any other lower authority took into account irrelevant consideration or excluded relevant factors in the ALP determination that impact significantly.
DCIT Vs Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) The appellant before us is a company which has received a sum of Rs.90 crores from other concern, i.e. Portescap. The assessee-company as well as the other concern, i.e. Portescap, have common shareholders inasmuch as the entire shareholding of the assessee-company as well as that […]
Onus is heavily upon the revenue to establish that that assessee’s activity had crossed the threshold period of 12 months and hence constitutes PE in India in terms of Article 5(2)(g) so as to tax the receipts in India as per Article 7.
Discount on prepaid products offered to distributors by assessee engaged in telecom services was in the nature of commission which did attract of section 194H.
transportation of effluents cannot be treated as transportation of ‚goods‛ and hence there cannot be any service tax liability under ‘Goods Transport Agency’ as defined in Section 65 (150b) of the Finance Act, 1994. This being so, the tax liability of Rs.1 1,24,258/- and the penalty imposed thereof cannot sustain and are set aside.
