Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Tax Updates - TMI e-Newsletters

Home e-Newsletters Index Year 2022 June Day 17 - Friday

TMI e-Newsletters FAQ
You need to Subscribe a package.

Newsletter: Where Service Meets Reader Approval.

TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
June 17, 2022

Case Laws in this Newsletter:

GST Income Tax Customs Insolvency & Bankruptcy Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax



Highlights / Catch Notes

    GST

  • Classification of services - Hostel Accommodation services - The service of hostel is optional and not coming out from the package and separate consideration will be charged for providing such hostel facility to the students. In fact, the hostel fees are not a part of any package concerning commercial training & coaching services rendered by the applicant. The Applicant is exclusively providing the Hostel Accommodation Service in isolation and no other service is clubbed or bundled along with the Hostel Accommodation Service. Thus, there is no question of Composite Supply u/s 2 (30) of the GST Act or Mixed Supply u/s 2(74) of the GST Act in the Case of the Applicant - Benefit of exemption is available if value per day is upto Rs. 1000/- - AAR

  • Classification of goods - appropriate rate of GST - U-bolt - Front Spring Bolts - Spring Pins - Since in the Commercial parlance the goods in question are known as Nuts and Bolts namely U-bolt, Front Spring Bolt, and Spring Pin and not by any other name and as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Classification of goods is to be determined by commercial identity test and not by functional test i.e. as to how they are referred to in the market by those who deal with them - AAR

  • Income Tax

  • Bogus LTCG - genuine v/s sham transaction - burden of proof - penny stock purchases - colourable devices adopted in the process or not? - The assessee cannot take shelter under the opinion given by the experts as it is not the expert who has indulged in the transaction but it is the assessee. - the Tribunal committed a serious error in setting aside the orders of the CIT(A) who had affirmed the orders of the Assessing Officer and equally the Tribunal committed a serious error both on law and fact in interfering with the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263 - HC

  • Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Period of limitation - denial of deduction u/s 11 - As the petitioner was well aware of the fact that this is the case of filling of inaccurate particulars in the returns and the petitioner has also replied to the same in the notices issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed writ petition long after the notices were issued, after the assessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer. It is only by way of an afterthought the petitioner had challenged the notices. - No relief - HC

  • Levy of tax on Anonymous donation u/s 115BBC - Section 68 has no application in the instant case because the assessee has disclosed the donation as its income and applied the same for charitable purpose. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the assessee has established the identity of the donors as provided U/s. 115BBC of the Act and hence the donations received by the assessee cannot be categorized as anonymous donations and cannot be subjected to tax as per the provisions of section 115BBC - AT

  • Penalty u/s 271G - requirement of maintenance of segment profitability between AEs and non-AEs transactions - non-maintenance of details in terms of section 92D(3) of IT Act r.w. Rule 10D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 - in the instant case there was reasonable cause for non-maintaining the details, which were required in terms of Rule 10D of the Rules - CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty - AT

  • Exemption u/s 11 - UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad - AO denied exemption holding that the assessee was hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act as the assessee has been doing the activities which amounts to carrying on of business or trade - in view of the fact that CBDT itself has considered similar activities as being undertaken by various assessees being of non commercial nature, the activities undertaken by the assessee also cannot be said to be of commercial nature. - AT

  • Addition on account of deposit of cash during the demonetization period - allegation of sham transactions - the AO has acted on mere surmise and conjectures without duly appreciating the undisputed fact that he himself has accepted the books of account as well as the book results. - the impugned addition was not called for especially when the assessee’s books of account have not been rejected and all the income and expenses and the book results have been accepted except the cash deposit without there being any iota of evidence - AT

  • Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - LTCG on purchase of plot - A.O. has not clearly mentioned the limb, on the basis of which, penalty was proposed to be imposed. - concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are two different forms and they cannot be inter mixed, therefore, we quash the penalty proceedings initiated U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. - AT

  • Disallowance u/s. 40(A)(2)(b) - excessive salary payment - payment to close associates / related parties - AO can disallow only that portion of the total expenditure, which in his opinion, is excessive or unreasonable. The onus is on the AO to form an opinion that the expenditure claimed as excessive/unreasonable having regard to the fair market value for which the payment is made. This opinion of the AO cannot be arbitrary but must be on the basis of determining the fair market value for which payment is made. - AT

  • Unexplained expenditure - Addition on the basis of contents of the seized document - keeping in view the fact that the assessee has offered the amounts mentioned on the impounded material which has been accepted by the revenue and also keeping in view that revenue has not brought anything on record to prove that the assessee is liable to pay the taxes more than what has been already disclosed - additions deleted - AT

  • Disallowance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses u/s 37(1) - prior to insertion of Explanation – 2 to section 37(1) of the Act, w.e.f., 01.04.2014, as per settled legal position, it is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1). A specific bar for allowing such expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act was brought to the statue by Finance Act, 2014 effective from 01.04.2014. The amendment, no doubt, will apply prospectively. - AT

  • Customs

  • Maintainability of application before Settlement Commission - A person who may not be an Importer or Exporter, can still file such an application u/s 127-B of the Act before the Settlement Commission if he is served with a show cause notice charging him with duty. - The Settlement Commission is directed to examine the application of petitioner on merits and in accordance with law and dispose the application on merits within 12 weeks from today - HC

  • Service Tax

  • SEZ unit - Refund of Service Tax - Service Tax paid on Banking and Other Financial Services - mere technical discrepancy in the invoices cannot be the ground for denying substantive benefit of refund available to SEZ unit. It is the policy of the Government to exempt or refund the input tax incurred by the SEZ unit. - AT

  • Refund of CENVAT Credit - whether mere procedural irregularity can curtail the substantial benefit or not - In the present case the amount in question was deposited under mistake of law, hence, was a deposit instead of being duty. Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the time bar therein cannot be applied to the present case. - AT

  • VAT

  • Issuance of Garnishee Notices - composition scheme - dispute over turnover - execution of civil work relating to construction of roads - If there is payment of tax under the composition scheme, question of regular assessment would not arise. In such circumstances receipt or nonreceipt of pre-assessment notices or assessment orders would have no significance or bearing as those are besides the point. When an action is without jurisdiction, the fact that the same has been put to challenge after two years would not be of material consequence. - HC


Articles


Notifications


Circulars / Instructions / Orders


News


Case Laws:

  • GST

  • 2022 (6) TMI 697
  • 2022 (6) TMI 696
  • Income Tax

  • 2022 (6) TMI 695
  • 2022 (6) TMI 694
  • 2022 (6) TMI 693
  • 2022 (6) TMI 692
  • 2022 (6) TMI 691
  • 2022 (6) TMI 690
  • 2022 (6) TMI 689
  • 2022 (6) TMI 688
  • 2022 (6) TMI 687
  • 2022 (6) TMI 686
  • 2022 (6) TMI 685
  • 2022 (6) TMI 684
  • 2022 (6) TMI 683
  • 2022 (6) TMI 682
  • 2022 (6) TMI 681
  • 2022 (6) TMI 670
  • 2022 (6) TMI 669
  • 2022 (6) TMI 668
  • 2022 (6) TMI 667
  • 2022 (6) TMI 666
  • 2022 (6) TMI 665
  • 2022 (6) TMI 664
  • 2022 (6) TMI 663
  • 2022 (6) TMI 662
  • 2022 (6) TMI 661
  • 2022 (6) TMI 660
  • 2022 (6) TMI 659
  • 2022 (6) TMI 658
  • 2022 (6) TMI 657
  • 2022 (6) TMI 656
  • Customs

  • 2022 (6) TMI 680
  • 2022 (6) TMI 679
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy

  • 2022 (6) TMI 678
  • Service Tax

  • 2022 (6) TMI 677
  • 2022 (6) TMI 676
  • 2022 (6) TMI 675
  • 2022 (6) TMI 674
  • 2022 (6) TMI 673
  • Central Excise

  • 2022 (6) TMI 672
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax

  • 2022 (6) TMI 671
 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates