Skip Navigation Links

Top Tax Stories

ITAT: Provision of Article 289 is not applicable as the Trust did not fall under Article 12 of the Constitution since it has a separate legal entity distinct from the state.
HC: Without any substantive material, assessee cannot be construed as owner of the WTGs. Payment made by it to Wescare can be treated only as a consumption charge for electricity supplied to them, for business purpose.
ITAT: Consultancy charges paid for introduction of client located and engaged in the business in India was in the nature of FTS, making assessee liable to withholding tax.
ITAT: All the primary facts in connection with the deduction claimed by the Assessee were called for in the original assessment on perusal of which, the deduction was granted.
HC: It is a case where the assessment was sought to be reopened on account of change of opinion, which is not permissible in terms of proviso to Section 147.
HC: Revenue’s appeal before ITAT needs to be restored and considered on its own merits in light of observations made in this order and after considering the documents/orders sought to be placed on record through the rectification application.
ITAT: It could not be said that the business was not set-up since the assessee had procured the land and partially constructed building during the year which was a vital step to commence the business activities for assessee.
ITAT: Whether corporate death of an entity on amalgamation invalidates a tax assessment order ordinarily cannot be determined on a bare application of Section 481 and will depend on facts of each case.
HC: The issue raised in the petition is that on assessee’s appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)’s order, the CIT(A)’s order was set aside, and thus the very foundation of the prosecution against the assessee for alleged wilful default and penalty fails.
ITAT: Issue of reopening was not decided by the CIT(A) and never raised by the assessee before the ITAT, and thus the same cannot be decided by the ITAT presently under any provisions.
HC: Finding under Section 195 is tentative and even if Revenue orders that no deduction of tax be made, the question of taxability of recipient still remains to be decided.
ITAT: In the professional field there are innovative ways visualized by the professional to make themselves visible and to build their own professional profile for generating higher and value added business, and such scholarships created is visibility in international arena and his social standing.
ITAT: A bank pass book or bank statement cannot be considered to be a 'book' maintained by the assessee for any previous year for the purpose of Section 68.
ITAT: Mere generation of surplus cannot be a reason to deny exemption u/s 11.
ITAT: Discount on issue of ESOP was allowable as deduction u/s.37(1) of the Act as primary object was not to vest capital but to earn profits by securing consistent services of employees.
ITAT: Unless a specific exception is provided in the circular w.r.t. penalty also, it could by no means be construed that penalty was to be treated at par with the quantum additions.
ITAT: Extending credit to non-members, could not debar PACS from availing deduction u/s 80P.
ITAT: The additional evidences filed by assessee in respect of unsecured loan were necessary to adjudicate the grounds of appeal as also on the principle of natural justice.
ITAT: Sufficient cause under the Limitations Act should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice.
ITAT: Penalty cannot be automatic and every addition in the assessment proceedings cannot be gate way for levy of penalty.
AAR: Letting out of property by Applicant to Backward Classes Welfare Department, Govt. of Karnataka, who in turn is providing hostel facilities is nothing but renting of an immovable property for welfare of the weaker sections and hence, exempted.
Sessions Court: Petitioner cannot be granted blanket protection for the reason that Petitioner, though being a sleeping partner has prima facie committed offence.
HC: As far as indirect taxes are concerned, an assessee can enter into a contract to shift its liability on the other party.
HC: Merely by recording that some investigation is going-on a drastic far-reaching action under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules cannot be sustained and same is against the provisions.
HC: GST registration cannot be cancelled basis a cryptic show-cause notice.
HC: The petition requires consideration and hence, the same is allowed.
AAAR: Appellant and HO are different persons under GST law and since all the pre-requisite of supply u/s 7(1)(a) are satisfied, activities by Appellant will clearly constitute supply to HO.
NAA: Prescription of time limit under Rule 133(1) and 129(6) are not mandatory and Respondent’s plea regarding non-observance of time limits are untenable.
HC: The provisions of section 140 and 117 are directory and not mandatory.
AAR: Software supplied by the Applicant qualifies as Computer Software resulting in supply of goods and therefore, classifiable under Heading 8523 80 20.
AAAR: The lower Authority has rightly refrained from examining this aspect since examining the classification of the service procured by the Appellant as a recipient of service is beyond the scope of the advance ruling mechanism.
AAR: In case of Advance received for supply of service, time of supply shall be date of receipt of advance, irrespective of the fact whether supply is made at that time or not and the deeming provision at Explanation(i) to Section 13(2) CGST comes into picture.
HC: Revenue is directed to scrutinize and sanction the refund of the petitioner” for IGST paid on goods exported by the Petitioner during the transitional period along with appropriate interest on such refund from the date of the shipping bill till the date of actual refund.
AAR: Tender cannot be considered as single composite supply because the applicant itself has divided the Tender into 4 different supplies.
HC: In a scam of such a huge latitude, with all its intricacies, custodial interrogation of the applicant, would be required.
HC: In the absence of notice to the Petitioner for carrying out physical inspection, there has been a complete violation of principles of natural justice.
HC: Benefit of ITC cannot be denied where all the transaction are proved to be genuine before the cancellation of registration of the suppliers.
HC: Revenue is directed to pass order afresh after communicating defects, if any and opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the refund application.
NAA: A single formula, which fits all, cannot be set while determining such a 'methodology and procedure' as the facts of each case are different.
HC: Procedural infraction shall not come in the legitimate way of grant of refund under the IGST Act, 2017 r/w CGST Act, 2017 and the Rules made thereunder.