It is held The transactions undertaken by NDDB and Unions in accordance with the agreements made by NDDB with State Government of Assam and Jharkhand are not to be considered as supply between ‘related persons’ in accordance with Schedule I of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) read with Section 15 of CGST Act and corresponding provisions under the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Whether supply of solar power plant under ‘Supply Contract’ is supply of ‘solar power generating system’ under Entry 234 of Schedule I of the Notification No. 1/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate), Entry 234 of Schedule I of the Notification No. 1/2017- Central Tax (Rate) both dated 28 June 2017 and Entry 234 of Schedule I of the Notification No. 1/2017- State Tax (Rate) dated 29 June 2017 where the assembly, erection, and commissioning of the solar power plant is undertaken by the Applicant under a separate contract?
The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned final judgment and order dated 24.02.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No 14376 of 2005 whereby a Division Bench of the High Court
Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of different models of EPABX. They are availing CENVAT Credit on certain inputs and input services as per CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004.
It has been argued that they are using service of M/s Dialogue Corporation, USA for the purpose of data storage. It has been argued that the said service provider does not provide online services and there is no online service provider. In absence of online database access, no Service Tax can be demanded under the head of Online Database Access and Retrieval Service.
M/s. Indo Lloyd Freight Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) As regards Brokerage commission of paid for booking of the export cargo, it is seen that the agents of shipping lines normally book the export cargo. The appellants actually get brokerage or commission for getting orders for the export of cargo. […]
HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Amritsar) The moot question is that what should be the nature of specification of a charge by the AO at the stage of initiation of penalty proceedings and at the time of passing the penalty order. Is the AO required to specify in the penalty notice/order as […]
The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Tax Case (Appeal) No. 368 of 2005 wherein the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent by absolving the additional tax liability imposed by the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 25.01.1996.
These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.01.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in R.A.No.1561 (Bom)/1982 and R.A.No.5161/B/80 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court while giving answers to the Reference Applications filed by the Respondent as well as the Revenue, confirmed certain findings passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) dated 16.08.1982 in favour of the Respondent
CIT Vs. Container Corporation of India Ltd (Supreme High Court) Whether the ICDs can be termed as Inland Ports so as to entitle deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act. The term port, in commercial terms, is a place where vessels are in a habit of loading and unloading goods. The term ‘Port’ as […]
