GST – AAR-Karnataka
“Applicability of GST over and above Rs. 7,500; GST on reimbursement of electricity charges; GST on collection of sinking fund / corpus fund.”
GST – AAR-Karnataka
“Applicability of GST over and above Rs. 7,500; GST on reimbursement of electricity charges; GST on collection of sinking fund / corpus fund.”
GST – AAR- Kerala .
“Whether the discount provided by the Principal Company to their dealers through the applicant is taxable under the GST laws? Whether the amount shown in the Commercial Credit note issued to the applicant by the Principal Company attracts proportionate reversal of input tax credit? Is there any tax liability under GST laws on the applicant for the amount received as reimbursement of discount or rebate provided by the Principal Company as per agreement between the Principal Company and their dealers and also an agreement between the principal and distributors? “
S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice –Joint Commissioner of Income tax -Reopening of assessment with the approval of Commissioner is held to be not valid [ S.147, 148 , 151(2) ]
PCIT v . Khushbu Industries ( 2019) BCAJ- January -P. 47 (Bom) (HC)S. 5 : Scope of total income -Accrual- Year of taxability -Income accrues only when it becomes due – When the other party accepts the liability to pay the amount .[ S.4, 145 ]
PCIT v .Rohan Projects ( 2020)( 2020) 269 Taxman 212 ( Bom) (HC)S. 68 : Cash credits – Share application money and share premium- Identity , genuineness of transaction, creditworthiness is proved – Deletion of addition is held to be justified .
PCIT v. Shree Rajalakshmi Textile Park Pvt Ltd ( 2020) BCAJ-January -P. 46 ( Bom) (HC)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Disallowance of expenditure – Deletion of penalty is held to be valid .
DCIT v. Akruti Kailash Construction ( 2020)BCAJ-January – P.34 (Mum) (Trib)S. 80AC : Return to be furnished – Housing projects- Fling of return of income u/s 139(1) is mandatory for claiming the deduction u/s 80IB (10) -Not eligible to claim the deduction . [ S.80IB(10),139(1) ]
Uma Developers v ITO ( 2020)BCAJ-January – P.34 (Mum) (Trib)S. 147 : Reassessment – Sale of agricultural land – Book profit-Erroneous application of law – Mechanical application of mind- Reassessment is held to be not valid .[ S. 2(14(iii) , 115JB ,148, 151, 263 ]
Krish Home Pvt Ltd v. ITO ( 2020) 78 ITR 101 (Jaipur)(Trib), www.itatonline.orgS. 147 : Reassessment – After the expiry of four years- Tangible material is required – Live link with such material for formation of the belief- Reason must specify as to what is the nature of default or failure on the part of the assessee- Reassessment notice is quashed . [ S. 40(a)(ia),148 , 194, 194I , Art .226 ]
BPTP Ltd v. PCIT ( 2020) 185 DTR 372 (Delhi)(HC), www.itatonline.orgS. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases- Business of Civil Contactor – Even if the purchases made by the assessee are to be treated as bogus, it does not mean that entire amount can be disallowed- As the AO did not dispute the consumption of the raw materials and completion of work, only a percentage of net profit on total turnover can be estimated. [ S. 37(1), 68 ]
PCIT v Pinaki D. Panani ( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline .org