It was decided that interest charged by Del credere Agent on amount of short term loans to end customers, is covered under Sl. No. 27 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and hence such interest amount will not attract GST.
If the IPL has resulted in all of us being acquainted and familiar with phrases such as Betting, fixing of matches, then, the RBI and the Central Government should at least now consider whether holding such tournaments serves the interest of a budding cricketer, the sport, the game itself.
The applicant poses for us to decide if the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) Contract falls within the definition of composite supply as found in the GST Act. Since we have elaborately discussed and observed above that the impugned transaction is a works contract u/ s 2(119) the GST Act, we need not even enter into the discussion as to whether the impugned transaction is a composite supply
Merely because assessee-company had claimed deduction of expenditure without deducting TDS on interest payment, which was not accepted by Revenue, by itself, would not attract the levy of penalty.
As amount disallowed under section 43B would become profits of business in the computation of income under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. Consequently, if the amounts disallowed were pertaining to the projects on which the claim under section 80-IA was made, the same had to be allowed as profits get increased to that extent. Therefore, AO was directed to examine the working of profits and allow the deduction.
Assessee has invested more than the sale proceeds of the industrial gala for purchase of two flats. Respectfully following the decision of Karnataka High Court,we do not find any merit for decline of assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.54 for investment in two flats out of sale proceeds of long term capital gains within the stipulated period provided in the Act.
Provisions of section 50C of the Act are not applicable in the case of the assessee as the capital asset involved here was not land or building but it is a right to purchase a building (shop).
It is well settled that where two non jurisdictional High Court’s decisions are opposed to each other, the one in favor of the assessee is required to be followed by the Tribunal.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5 (1) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Merely on the reasoning that liability in respect of some of the sundry creditors have remained outstanding for about three years the assessing officer has concluded that they have to be treated as income of the assessee in the impugned assessment year as they have ceased to exist as per section 41(1) of the Act.
