August 2018

Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 260A

Karnataka H.C : The Tribunal is correct in directing the assessing officer to exclude expenses incurred in foreign currency and other expenses that has been excluded from ETO, from the total turnover also and accordingly recomputed the deduction under section 10A without appreciating the fact that there is no provision in sec. 10A that such expenses should be reduced from the total turnover also as clause (iv) of the Explanat on 2 to Sec. 10A provides that such expenses are to be reduced only from the export turnover

High Court Of Karnataka Pr.CIT And Anr. vs. Cypress Semiconductors Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Section : 260A Asst. Year 2005-06 […]

Section 28, Income Tax Case Laws

Rajasthan H.C : the learned ITAT has erred in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) in considering the division of the huge chunk of 10-11 bigha agricultural land into smaller portions of agricultural land for easy viability and sale as income from business and profession instead of income under the head capital gains, even when the appellant had inherited the land from his forefathers and had no intention or a previous track record of being into the business of purchase and sale of properties

High Court Of Rajasthan Mahaveer Yadav vs. ITO Section 28 Mohammad Rafiq & Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ. D.B. Income Tax Appeal

Featured, Section 80-O

Bombay H.C : The Tribunal sought to have held in view of the consistent stand of the respondent for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1991-92 that the entirety of the net receipts of the Appellant were eligible for deduction under section 80-O of the Act, he had no jurisdiction to take the view that a portion of such receipts was attributable to alleged “routine services” in the present year in the absence of any change in the facts and circumstances

High Court Of Bombay SGS India (P) Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 80-O Asst. Year 1992-93, 1994-95,

GST Caselaws

GST : AAR : The Applicant stated to be, a provider of security services to the Bank, seeks a Ruling on chargeability of GST on the Toll Taxes reimbursed by its clients or the ability to claim it as a deduction under Rule 33 from the value of supply, being expenditure incurred as a pure agent under the CGST/WBGST Acts, 2017.

WEST BENGAL AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING GOODS AND SERVICE TAX 14 Beliaghata Road, Kolkata – 700015 Premier Vigilance & Security

GST Caselaws

AAR : The Applicant stated to be, a provider of security services to the Bank, seeks a Ruling on chargeability of GST on the Toll Taxes reimbursed by its clients or the ability to claim it as a deduction under Rule 33 from the value of supply, being expenditure incurred as a pure agent under the CGST/WBGST Acts, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “the said GST Act”). Advance Ruling is admissible under Section 97(2)(e) & (g) of the said GST Act

WEST BENGAL AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING GOODS AND SERVICE TAX 14 Beliaghata Road, Kolkata – 700015 Premier Vigilance & Security

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security