Satyendra Goods Transport Corp. Vs State of U.P. & ors. (Allahabad High Court) It has been held that on the relevant date i.e. 4 Dec. 2017 when the vehicle in question was intercepted, the ‘Government’ referred in Rule 138 of the C.G.S.T. Rules 2017, which was the Central Government, had not developed and approved any […]
Mere making of claim, which was not sustainable in law, by itself, did not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars, unless mens rea was established, therefore, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
Where assessee after, investing capital gain in purchase of new agricultural land within prescribed time, harbored a bona fide belief that there was not any tax liability of capital gain and substantiated his explanation with relevant evidence, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unjustified.
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The grievance of Revenue relates to deleting addition of Rs. 7,64,271 made by assessing officer on account of transfer fees and addition made on account of premium received by assessee from its members on utilization of Transfer of Development Rights. 3. The rival contentions have been heard and records perused.
These are appeals filed by the assessee directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-13, Mumbai and order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-14, Mumbai dated 28-1-2016 for the assessment year 2006-07. Since facts are identical and issues are common, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.
Fees collected by the police department is in the nature of fee prescribed for performing statutory function, which has been deposited into the Govt. treasury. In the light of the C.B.E. & C. ‘s circular also, there can be no levy of service tax on such activities carried out by the police department.
Hatch Associates India (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Admittedly, the impugned assessment year before us is A Y 2007 – 08. For that, AY the assessee has filed return of income on 30/10/2007. Notice u/s 143 (2) of The Income Tax Act should have been served on the assessee within 6 months from the […]
Shri S.S. Gupta, Learned Chartered Accountant, appeared on behalf of the appellant submits that the construction of hospital building does not fall under the ‘commercial or industrial construction service’ for the reason that the hospital building is not used for commerce or industry as the hospital in the present case is run by a charitable trust. For this reason also the charitable trust is not a business or commerce hence the construction thereof does not fall within the definition of commercial or industrial construction service
M/s Teesta Distribution Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) Therefore, the writ petition is disposed with the following directions: (I) Rule 56(20A)(iii)(d) of the Kerala State GST Rules is struck down holding that the State has no legislative competence to formulate such Rule. (II) The challenge to the vires of other Rules is negatived. […]
While hearing the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s Prasidh Leasing Limited, the Delhi High Court ruled that Provisions of Deemed Dividend applicable when Assessee diverted Advance amount received for procuring import licenses for purchase of shares under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
