Section 35L is being amended so as to clarify that determination of disputes relating to tax ability or excisability of goods is covered under the term ‘determination of any question having a relation to rate of duty’ and hence, appeal against Tribunal orders in such matters would lie before the Supreme Court.
1. Challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Prohibition Act‘), these writ petitions have been filed and the reliefs claimed are to declare Section 2(40) (ii), Section 13, Section 23 and Section 24(1) of the Prohibition Act as ultra vires to the […]
ITAT Hyderabad has held in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Lanco Infratech Limited held that Mobilisation/ trade advance has been wrongly treated as trade receivable. It is not to be subjected to TP. It cannot be re-characterised as receivables. Moreover, advances given as part of contract work does not require any special addition, when […]
There are no operative legislative provisions of the Act legitimising the levy and collection of service tax from the appellants, for providing Club or association service, in so far as these relate to any services provided to members of these appellants.
The appellant had approached this Court, aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against her for disqualification on the ground of having three children, the third child having born after the cut-off date.
Since the very basis for levy and upholding of penalty under section 271C of the Act by the authorities below for assessment years 2000- 01 and 2002-03 to 2004- 05 does not survive, the orders levying/upholding the aforesaid penalty are not sustainable.
In this case high court held that payment of employees contribution under the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act, 1952 and the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is allowable if paid before the due date of filing Income Tax Return or filing of Income Tax Return whichever is earlier even if the same is paid after the due dates as prescribed under these Welfare Acts.
Assessee was entitled to full exemption under section 54F when the full amount was invested by the assessee even though the property was purchased in the joint names for the sake of convenience
Where an alternative mode (Whatsapp and Email) is used and service is shown to be effected of the notice, and is acknowledged , then surely it cannot be suggested that the Defendants had ‘no notice’
In our considered view, without proving the nexus between the borrowed funds and its utilisation for non-business purposes, no dis allowance of interest expenditure can be made.
