CIT Vs M/s Calcutta Export Company (Supreme Court of India) The purpose of the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 is to solve the anomalies that the insertion of section 40(a)(ia) was causing to the bona fide tax payer. The amendment, even if not given operation retrospectively, may not materially be of consequence to […]
CIT Vs S. Ajit Kumar (Supreme Court of India) The power of survey has been provided under Section 133A of the IT Act. Therefore, any material or evidence found/collected in a Survey which has been simultaneously made at the premises of a connected person can be utilized while making the Block Assessment in respect of […]
Pr. CIT Vs New Delhi Television Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Legislature itself contemplates the discount on premium under ESOP as a benefit provided by the employer to its employees during the course of sendee. If the Legislature considers such discounted premium to the employees as a fringe benefit or ‘any consideration for employment’, it is […]
Mehsana District Co-operative Vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court) Subrule (7) of rule 10THD thus lays down the time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass an order under subrule(4) and for the concerned competent authority to pass an appropriate order under subrule(6). We may recall under subrule(4), the Assessing Officer may declare that the option […]
The company is registered as Outdoor Caterers under the GST Act. It was also registered in the same category under service tax regime The company is engaged in the business of supply, by way of and as a part of and in any other manner whatsoever of goods, being food and any other article for human consumption or drink.
In re Khilari Infrastructure Private Limited (GST AAR Maharashtra) Question -1 -Determination of GST leviable on operation and maintenance work order given by such Municipal Corporation. Answer : – Under GST Act, 2017, their services attracted CGST & SGST @ 9% each with effect from 01.07.2017 and CGST & SGST @ 6% each with effect […]
Merely of none mentioning of the vehicle no. in Part-B of E-Way Bill cannot be a ground for seizure of the goods. We hold that the order of seizure is totally illegal and once the petitioner has placed the material and evidence with regard to its claim, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent no.2 to consider and pass an appropriate reasoned order.
Suresh Jugraj Mutha Vs Addl.CIT (ITAT Pune) Conclusion: It is outside the jurisdiction of AO converting the limited scrutiny case like the present one to the unlimited one without the approval of Administrative Commissioner of Income Tax. Facts – Assessee filed the return and the case was taken up for limited scrutiny for the purpose […]
M/s. Gulf Steel & Minerals Vs ITO (ITAT Ranchi) The AO is wrong in making the impugned addition on account of sundry creditor, which are related to purchases and the same also accepted by the AO as genuine. Without rejecting the purchases, the sundry creditors cannot be treated as income of assessee Therefore, addition made by […]
it is revealed that the ndia Gate Basmati Rice sold by the Respondent was not liable for tax before the implementation of the GST and after coming into force of the CGST Act, 2017 it was levied GST @ 5% w.e.f. 22.09.2017.
