She has also tried to demonstrate that at the time of JDA, the land which was part of the stock-in-trade was contributed under JDA for the construction of residential apartments. Therefore, the profit earned on sale of flat would be a business profit.
Pr. CIT Vs Samtel India LTD (Delhi High Court) From the facts of this case it is clear that the assessee disclosed all the particulars of his income. The AO has disallowed his claim without holding it to be bogus or false. Hence, the genuineness of the loss occurred is not at question here. The […]
When fraud is played, which is apparently prima facie apparent from the records, then the finality of a decree cannot be allowed to precipitate. The said principle is fortified by the Supreme Court in {(2007) 7 SCC 482}.
The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/s. Coconut Lagoon Kumarakom (CESTAT Bangalore) it is seen that the ayurvedic centres are providing therapeutic treatment under ayurvedic system. Going by the mere fact that the centres are located in the resorts and sometimes the duration of treatment is for one or two days, it cannot be concluded that […]
Rohit Surfactant Pvt Ltd Vs CGST, C.C & C.E- UJJAIN (CESTAT Delhi) It is seen that the Cenvat Credits have been disallowed by the lower authority, vide the impugned order, by observing that the services fall within the exclusion category specified in Rule 2 (I) (C). This exclusion clause disallows the Cenvat Credit in respect […]
Pollution control device being supplied by the applicant for use in ‘waste to energy plants/devices’ are classifiable under chapter heading 8421 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and are covered by Sr. No. 234 of schedule I of Notification No.01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dt.28.06.2017 & Notification No.35/ST-2 dt.30.06.2017, chargeable to CGST @2.5% and SGST @ 2.5%.
In re Purewal Stone Crusher (GST AAR Uttarakhand) (i) Abhivahan Shulk is different, from toll tax and is covered under Service Code 9997 and to be “treated as ‘other services’ and is liable for GST. The applicant is liable to pay GST @ 18% as on date on the same under reverse charge in terms […]
Sonia Gandhi & Oscar Fernandes Vs. ACIT and Rahul Gandhi Vs. PCIT (Delhi High Court) The entire premise of the reassessment notices in this case is that the nondisclosure of the taxing event, i.e. allotment of shares (and the absence of any declaration as to value) deprived the AO of the opportunity to look into […]
Petitioner and her co-accused in connivance with each other had made 35 fake firms and after making fake entries had issued invoices involving tax amount of more than Rupees Ten Crores. In her statement recorded on 02.08.2018, petitioner has admitted that she had prepared fake firms after accepting fee from her co-accused on the basis of fake ID’s and documents. The firms were misused for evading GST by Sandeep Goyal and Rajesh Arora. Case is still under investigation.
M/s. Aquatic Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Vs The DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The Revenue has alleged the assessee of taking bogus purchases and accommodation bills on account of such purchased. In our considered opinion this refers to two possibilities. 1) A person is purchasing goods from another person without any bill and then taking purchase bills from […]
