Indian Tax Solutions
Home | Why Register? | Register | Subscription | Contact Us | Discussion Board | Pay Online
Last Updated : Monday 15th September, 2014 - 4:48pm
NEWS UPDATES

Determination of place of removal - CBEC issues guidelines Continue reading | Approval of long term bonds and rate of interest for the purpose of Section 194LC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Continue reading | Govt hikes tariff value of gold and reduces the same for RBD Palmolein Continue reading | Exchange Rate for the purpose of import and export with effect from  17th October, 2014 Continue reading | Export warehousing - Extension of facility at Bhuj Taluka  in Kutch District in the state of Gujarat Continue reading | Amendment of Notification No. 27/2014 - Central Excise (NT) dated 16.09.2014 Continue reading | Levy of service tax on activities involved in relation to inward remittances from abroad to beneficiaries in India through MTSOs Continue reading | Monthly Performance Reports - Instructions Continue reading | Audit by officers of Central Excise -CBEC issues guidelines Continue reading | Exchange Rate for the purpose of import and export with effect from  2nd Oct , 2014 Continue reading |
PEO company
Category Archives: Supreme Court
   

Supreme Court

2014-ITS-1547-SC-Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-I, New Delhi -Vs- Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. , On. SEPTEMBER  15, 2014 

SC discusses the evils of retrospective law while upholding the principle “that unless a contrary intention appears, a law is presumed to be prospective” but stops short of holding substantive retrospective amendments hurting tax payers as unconstitutional Continue reading

2014-ITS-1217-SC-Sanjeev Lal -Vs- Commissioner of Income-tax, Chandigarh , On. JULY  1, 2014 

Where assessee having executed an agreement to sell in respect of a house property, purchased a new residential property within one year from date of agreement to sell, in view of fact that subsequently sale deed could not be executed within prescribed time for reason that assessee had been prevented from dealing with said residential house by an order of a competent court, a valid ‘transfer’ took place within meaning of section 2(47) by executing agreement to sell and, consequently, relief under section 54 was to be granted to assessee in respect of purchase of new residential property Continue reading

2014-ITS-1248-SC-Union of India -Versus – Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. , decided on 9-5-2014

The respondent sold duty paid stock at higher price from its sales depots. Relevant factors not considered while deciding appeal. The case remitted to competent authority for passing appropriate order as per law after allowing the assessee to bring to its notice normal price in course of whole sale trade, place of removal of goods, transportation charges etc. Impugned order set aside. Appeal allowed. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1247-SC-KONE ELEVATOR INDIA PVT. LTD. -Versus – State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. , decided on 6-5-2014

Whether a contract is of the first or the second class must depend upon the circumstances: if it is of the first; it is a composite contract for work and sale of goods: where it is of the second category, it is a contract for execution of work not involving sale of goods. whether a contract is a ‘Works Contract’. It has to be necessarily examined based on the terms agreed between the parties as to what is the intention of the parties. Since it is found that the present contract is a contract for sale, it cannot be held to be a ‘Works Contract’. Show cause notices, which have been issued by taking recourse to reopening of assessment, shall stand quashed. The assessment orders which have been framed and are under assail before the Court are set aside. Where the assessments have been framed and have attained finality and are not pending in appeal, they shall be treated to have been closed, and where the assessments are challenged in appeal or revision, the same shall be decided in accordance with the decision of court. Petitions and Civil Appeals disposed off.   Continue reading

2014-ITS-1157-SC-Commissioner of Income-tax- VII, New Delhi -Vs- Punjab Stainless Steel Industries* , On. MAY  5, 2014 

For purpose of computation of deduction under section 80HHC of manufacturer and exporter of stainless steel utensils, proceeds generated from sale of scrap would not be included in ‘total turnover’ Continue reading

2014-ITS-1037-SC-Rajasthan R.S.S. & Ginning Mills Fed. Ltd. -Vs- Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur* , On. APRIL  29, 2014 

Pursuant to scheme of amalgamation, an amalgamating co-operative society cannot carry forward and set off its accumulated losses against profits of amalgamated co-operative society Continue reading

2014-ITS-790-SC-Rajasthan R.S.S. & Ginning Mills FED. Ltd. -Vs- Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur , On. APRIL  29, 2014 

There is no provision in the Income-tax Act, which would permit the amalgamating co-operative society to carry forward and adjust such losses against the profits of the amalgamated co-operative society – Benefits conferred to one class of legal entities does not mean that the legal entities not referred to in the Act would also get the same benefit Continue reading

2014-ITS-1249-SC-KIRTIKUMAR JAWAHARLAL SHAH -Versus – Union of India , decided on 15-4-2014

Pre-deposit – Appeal dismissed by Tribunal for not making pre-deposit. Part of the amount being deposited, restoration application rejected by Tribunal and High Court. On depositing balance, application restored and Tribunal directed to dispose of appeal in accordance with law. Appeal disposed of. Continue reading

2014-ITS-741-SC-Commissioner of Income-tax -III -Vs- Calcutta Knitwears , On. MARCH  12, 2014 

The Assessing Officer could record his satisfaction for issuing notice under section 158BD in the case of person other than searched person even after the completion of assessment of searched person. Continue reading

2014-ITS-164-SC-Commnr. Of Central Excise, Jaipur vs M/S. Super Synotex (India) Ltd. & … on 28 February, 2014

In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the assessees in all the appeals are entitled to get the benefit of the circular dated 12.3.1998 which protects the industrial units availing incentive scheme as there is a conceptual book adjustment of the sales tax paid to the Department. But with effect from 1.7.2000 they shall only be entitled to the benefit of the amount “actually paid” to the Department, i.e., 25%. Needless to emphasise, the set off shall operate only in respect of the amount that has been paid on the raw material and inputs on which the sales tax/ purchase tax has been paid. That being the position the adjudication by the tribunal is not sustainable. Similarly the determination by the original adjudicating authority requiring the assessees to deposit or pay the whole amount and the consequential imposition of penalty also cannot be held to be defensible. Continue reading

Search
Advanced Search
 
Member Login

You are not currently logged in.

Username
Password
  Forgot Password? | Sign Up
 
Subscribe Newsletter
Subscribe to our newsletter and be kept with latest Indian Tax solutions.
Name
Email