S.37(1): Business expenditure -Expenses to keep its status of the Company active was held to be allowable as business expenditure as business loss .[ S. 28(i) ]
Kesha Appliances Pvt. Ltd v. ITO ( 2018) 63 ITR ( Trib) 294 ( Delhi) (Trib)S.37(1): Business expenditure -Expenses to keep its status of the Company active was held to be allowable as business expenditure as business loss .[ S. 28(i) ]
Kesha Appliances Pvt. Ltd v. ITO ( 2018) 63 ITR ( Trib) 294 ( Delhi) (Trib)S. 32: Depreciation – Option- Newly established industrial undertakings – Back ward areas –Additional question was admitted and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to consider factual aspect [ S. 80HH, 260A(4)]
CIT v. Auto Mobile Corporation of Goa Ltd ( 2018) 405 ITR 310/164 DTR 168 ( Bom) (HC)S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Quality control accreditation of organisations -Application fees membership fees and fees for organising seminars-Entitle to exemption[ S. 2(15), 12 ]
Dy.CIT v. Quality Council of India ( 2018) 63 ITR ( Trib) (S.N.) 43 Delhi) ( Trib)Advocate Act , 1961
S.7:Code of ethics – Dishonest practice – For misrepresentations before the Court, which should under any and all circumstances be dealt with the iron hand of the judiciary with zero tolerance for such blatantly unethical and mala-fide behaviour- Exemplary cost of Rs 10 lakh was to be paid to plaintiffs [ Contempt Courts Act , 1971 ]
Adjournment –Delay in filing affidavit of reply – Cost of Rs.4 , 50,000 / was levied .
Ram Nagar Trust No. 1 v. Mehtab L. Sheikh (Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.orgCentral Goods and Service Tax Act , 2017
GST Network: The regime is not tax friendly.
Service tax – Finance Act, 1994
S.65:Service-tax on maintenance of property-Under the MOFA, the builder/ developer is under a statutory obligation to look after the day-to-day upkeep, maintenance and repair of the property till conveyance to the co-op society. Such maintenance of the structure is not rendering a taxable service as per S. 65 (64) of the Finance Act, 1994
Interpretation of taxing statutes — Beneficial Provision — Retrospective application.
CIT v. Manoj Kumar Singh. (2018) 402 ITR 238/ 303 CTR 294/ 167 DTR 179 (All) (HC)Interpretation of taxing statutes — Similarity in language used in provisions.
CIT v. Swapna Enterprise (2018) 401 ITR 488 / 253 Taxman 531 /166 DTR 51/ 302 CTR 504 (Guj) (HC)Interpretation of taxing statutes — Presumption of prospectivity of statute- Machinery provisions .
CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) (HC)