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 2020 July Day 30 - Thursday

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

Newsletter: Where Service Meets Reader Approval.

TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
July 30, 2020

Case Laws in this Newsletter:

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



Articles


News


Notifications


Circulars / Instructions / Orders


Highlights / Catch Notes

    Income Tax

  • Penalty levied u/s 271(I)(c) - Whether "Mens rea" is apparent in this case? - where the two regular appellate authorities have granted the relief to the Assessee by deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Authority u/s 271(1)(c), we don't think that it is a fit case for re-imposition thereof, by allowing the appeal of the Department - HC

  • Deemed dividend u/s 2 (22)(e) - advance made by the subsidiary company to the respondent/holding company - Obviously, the department would have been well aware of the fact that the amount of ₹ 3.00 Crores advanced by the subsidiary to its holding company, cannot be taxed twice. When such being the position, we are really surprised to see that the initiation of two separate proceedings for the same transaction is not appreciable. - HC

  • Loss of hedging of foreign currency receivable from exports - Loss on account of futures and options set off against the business profit - No substantial question of law to be arising in the present case at this stage, requiring our consideration or pronouncement on the merits of the case, since the matter has only been remanded to the Assessing Authority - HC

  • Entitled for exemption u/s 47(v) with respect to the transfer of land - Holding company - determination of 100% subsidiary company where 25 shares held by 6 nominees - The individuals are nominees of the holding company and they have no individual right, which facts were also not disputed. Therefore, on facts, it has to be held that whole of the share capital of the subsidiary company is held by the holding company in the instant case. - HC

  • Admission of additional evidences - As in the present case the Assessee could not lead the required evidence before the lower authorities. We are of the view that the evidences which the assessee has filed now have a material bearing on the issue which is before us. - Ends of justice demands the admission of the additional evidences. - AT

  • TP Adjustment - As application of TNMM method has been accepted by the Tribunal for AYs 2005-06 to 2007-08 and no change in facts or circumstances has been demonstrated before us for this year. Therefore, following the rule of consistency and the cited order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we hold that TNMM methodology as adopted by the assessee to benchmark the transactions was to be accepted. - AT

  • Validity of notice issued u/s 153C - the seized material found from the premises of the 3rd party in the course of search does not belong to the assessee. Thus in our considered view the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, cannot be initiated. - AT

  • Deduction u/s 54 denied - LTCG - New house property was purchased in the name of son - it can be seen that the son of the assessee is a direct relation - In a case, Delhi HC has allowed the exemption where assessee had purchased new house in name of his wife - thus, the exemption could not be denied if entire investment had come out of proceeds of old property - AT

  • Service Tax

  • Valuation - inclusion of reimbursement of expenses in assessable value - pure agent services - this amount is not includable in the assessable value for charging service tax - AT

  • Central Excise

  • Refund alongwith interest - Recovery of interest from the erring officers - the interest of 6% would be payable up to the date when the amount was credited in the account of the Consumer Welfare Fund. However, after that date the petitioner should be entitled to higher rate of interest say 18% till the date of actual payment and the excess amount of interest so paid to be recovered from the officers found responsible for not making payment in time after due inquiry by the Department. - HC


Case Laws:

  • GST

  • 2020 (7) TMI 670
  • 2020 (7) TMI 669
  • Income Tax

  • 2020 (7) TMI 668
  • 2020 (7) TMI 667
  • 2020 (7) TMI 666
  • 2020 (7) TMI 665
  • 2020 (7) TMI 664
  • 2020 (7) TMI 663
  • 2020 (7) TMI 662
  • 2020 (7) TMI 661
  • 2020 (7) TMI 660
  • 2020 (7) TMI 659
  • 2020 (7) TMI 658
  • 2020 (7) TMI 657
  • 2020 (7) TMI 656
  • 2020 (7) TMI 655
  • Customs

  • 2020 (7) TMI 654
  • Service Tax

  • 2020 (7) TMI 653
  • Central Excise

  • 2020 (7) TMI 652
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax

  • 2020 (7) TMI 651
 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates