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.orgAdjournment –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)Interpretation – Binding precedent -. Interpretations given by High Courts and Tribunals cannot be ignored by the Assessing Officers
Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. v. CIT( 2018) 404 ITR 564/166 DTR 379 (Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.orgWealth –tax Act, 1957 –Finance Act 1983
S. 40(3) :Levy of wealth tax on land and building which is not used for the purpose of business was held to be valid – Parliament has legislative competence to tax land and buildings which are in List-II of the 7th Schedule and whether the classification of “companies in which the public are not substantially interested” is neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India . [ Art 14 ]
Wealth-tax Act, 1957
S. 7:Net Wealth — Vehicle funded by and maintained on behalf of Principal foreign company was held to be not included in net Wealth of Assessee -Principle of consistency was followed .[S.2(m) ]
Wealth-tax Act, 1957
S. 2(ea): Valuation of asset – Immoveable property – Lessee sub-leasing property for higher rent and receiving deposit- Value Of Property declared by assessee was correct fair market value as on the relevant valuation date — Amount paid by lessee was not assessable as income of assesse. [ S. 5, 7 , Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ]
DIT Wealth-Tax v. Hersh W. Chadha (2018) 401 ITR 502/165 DTR 52/ 302 CTR 245 (Delhi) (HC)