You are not Logged in

  •     BUDGET 2021-22 - Live Commentary
  •     BUDGET Highlights
  •     Amendments Proposed

Daily Fresh Fruits India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. STO
  Section 129   GST

In case of a bona fide dispute with regard to the classification between a transitor of the goods and the squad officer, the squad officer may intercept the goods and detain them for the purpose of preparing the relevant papers for effective transmission to the judicial assessing officers and nothing beyond.

Rashmi Jalan v. Asstt. CIT
  Section 271AAB   Direct Taxes

Penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB did not specify default committed by assessee to attract penalty @ 10% or 20% or 30% of undisclosed income. Accordingly, the notice was defective and penalty levied on the basis of such notice could not be sustained.

K. Vinuthna Reddy v. ITO
  Section 2(1A)   Direct Taxes

Where land from which rent was received was either used for research and development or kept vacant but not used for agricultural purposes and unless there was some measure of cultivation of land and some skilled labour was performed on land for cultivation, land cannot be said to have been used for agricultural purposes, then in such circumstances rent derived from land cannot be treated as agricultural income.

Electroplating & Metal Finishers, In re
  Section 100 of CGST ACT   GST

The activity of electroplating undertaken by applicant is supply of service and is classifiable under Heading No. 9988 chargeable to tax at the rate of 9 per cent CGST and 9 per cent SGST upto 30-09-2019 irrespective of whether goods are owned by registered or unregistered persons.

Minoo M. Siganporia v. ITO
  Section 147   Direct Taxes

Where assessee had received entire consideration and possession of the property was also handed over in the assessment year 2004-05, he would be exigible towards capital gain tax only for the assessment year 2004-05 and not for the assessment year 2007-08 when proper sale deed was executed and registered. Just because capital gain accrued to assessee has escaped tax in assessment year 2004-05, the same cannot be brought to tax subsequently in assessment year 2007-08, therefore, AO was directed to delete the addition made.

CITY v. VVA Hotels (P) Ltd.
  Section 56(2)(viib)   Direct Taxes

Where AO had discarded the DCF method adopted by assessee on the ground that actual revenue varied from the projected revenue for four years, Tribunal rightly noted that projected value was an estimate and variation in the estimate is marginal and merely because AO was of the view that NAV method alone had to be adopted was not a ground to reject the DCF method, further, AO did not point out any flaw in method of calculation of the value of shares by adopting the DCF method, therefore, appeal of Revenue was dismissed.

Krishnaping Alloys Ltd. v. ACIT
  Section 41(1)   Direct Taxes

Non-appearance or non-response of creditors could not be sole ground to draw an adverse inference against assessee, when assessee had filed necessary evidence to prove that liability was genuine in nature, which was subsequently paid back by converting said liability into share application money. None of the conditions prescribed under section 41(1) were fulfilled, in order to bring said liability within the ambit of provisions of section 41(1) because neither liability was ceased to exist during the year, nor AO proved that it was a non-genuine trading liability. Accordingly, AO was not justified in making additions towards cessation or remission of liability under section 41(1).

Dy. CIT v. Ernet India
  Section 2(15), Proviso   Direct Taxes

Merely earning surplus did not result into the conclusion, that assessee was carrying on its activities, which could be termed as business, trade, or commerce, charging a nominal fee to use coding system and to avail of advantages and benefits therein was neither reflective of business aptitude nor indicative of profit-oriented intent. Accordingly, proviso to section 2(15) did not get attracted, and hence, there was no justification for denying exemption under section 11.

Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, In re
  Section 99 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017   GST

Services rendered by applicant (State Forest Development Corporation) by way of allowing extraction of Reta, Bajri, Boulders from river beds in forest area liable to tax at the rate of 5 per cent GST during the period 1-7-2017 to 31-12-2018 while 18 per cent from 1-1-2019 onwards.

Municipal Corporation Pratapgarh, In re
  Section 100 of the RGST Act, 2017   GST

If the activity undertaken by the local authority where there is Works Contract of Composite Supply composite supply of goods and services and quantum of supply of goods is more than 25% then rate of GST will be applicable as mentioned in respective Notification. As the activities attracts GST and are not Nil rated therefore, provisions of TDS will be applicable.

1 2