In re M/s. Fichtner Consulting Engineers (India) Private Limited (GST AAR Tamilnadu) The Authorised Representative of the Applicant was heard in the matter. They submitted that they are providing engineering consultancy services to a recipient in Chennai in relation to an immovable property, a coal mine located in North Karanpura Coalfields, Jharkhand for coal handling […]
In re Anabond Limited (GST AAR Tamilnadu) It is hereby clarified that the ‘Polysulphide Sealant’ manufactured by the applicant and marketed under the trade name ‘Anabond Tuffseald’ is classifiable under CTH 3214 10 00 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as applicable to GST as per Explanation (iii) to Notification 1/2017-Central […]
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Lok Adalat could not have passed the order on merits and should have been referred the case to the Regular Court for adjudication and if the orders are passed thereafter the substantial right of the petitioner would have been affected, therefore, the impugned order dated 09.09.2017 be set aside and the case be referred to the regular Court for decision on merits.
This appeal by the Assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-5, Mumbai, (in short CIT(A)) in appeal No. CIT(A)-5/DCIT-2(2)/IT-118/2006-07 dated 15-11-2011. The Assessment was framed by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle-2(2), Mumbai (in short DCIT) for the assessment year 2004-05 vide order even dated 18-12-2006 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act).
CIT Vs Arvind Products Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) Assessee who was engaged in manufacturing textile products, had expended the amount in question for product development undertaken by a sister concern of the assessee on its behalf. The research work did not involve development of a new product or even a new technique or technology to […]
It was submitted by the assessee that the fees were paid for marketing service rendered outside India and hence, did not become chargeable to tax in India requiring tax deduction u/s. 195 of the Act.
Where AO was of view that assessee had made bogus purchase on the ground that no proof of transportation and lorry receipt was filed, however, AO was not justified in making addition of 25% of purchase amount and addition was to be restricted to 5% of purchase.
Challenging the order dated 02.03.2015 in Appeal No 98/13-14/GZN/63 for the assessment year 2010-11 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar (for short hereinafter called as the learned CIT(A)), the assessee preferred this appeal.
Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court) Rule 9B(5) starts with a non-obstante Under the said rule, it is laid down that deduction under Rule 9B shall not be allowed unless the distributor credits in the books of accounts, the amounts realised by the distributor in case where the distributor himself has exhibited […]
CIT Vs. Cactus Imaging India (P.) Ltd. (Madras High Court) It can be inferred that the machines ‘computer printers’ under consideration can either be called computers-printers, since a lot of independent functions done by the computers are done by these printers and they can be called an integral part of the computer system. It should […]
