See the footer if you would like to unsubscribe from the newsletter
Dear Subscriber,
Dear Subscriber,
Judgements uploaded by esteemed readers:
Skill Lotto Solutions Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors
The Apex court today in a landmark judgement clarified in detail the definition of goods and actionable claims under the GST Act and held that the inclusion of actionable claim in definition "goods" as given in Section 2(52) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is not contrary to the legal meaning of goods and is neither illegal nor unconstitutional. Further the court held that Lottery, betting and gambling are well known concepts and have been in practice in this country since before independence and were regulated and taxed by different legislations. When Act, 2017 defines the goods to include actionable claims and included only three categories of actionable claims, i.e., lottery, betting and gambling for purposes of levy of GST, it cannot be said that there was no rationale for including these three actionable claims for tax purposes. Regulation including taxation in one or other form on the activities namely lottery, betting and gambling has been in existence since last several decades. The court also held that while determining the taxable value of supply the prize money is not to be excluded for the purpose of levy of GSTThe State of Jharkhand & Ors Vs Brahmaputra Metallics Limited, Ranchi
The apex court today in a landmark decision dismissed the appeal of the State of Jharkhand by holding that the rebate of electricity duty which it had promised in terms of Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2012 and which was supposed to be notified by it by way of notification which was not issued and thus depriving the respondents of the benefit was hit by doctrine of promissory estoppel and doctrine of legitimate expectation. The court held that the State having held out a solemn representation in the above terms, it would be manifestly unfair and arbitrary to deprive industrial units within the State of their legitimate entitlement. It is one thing for the State to assert that the writ petitioner had no vested right but quite another for the State to assert that it is not duty bound to disclose its reasons for not giving effect to the exemption notification within the period that was envisaged in the Industrial Policy 2012. The court also brushed aside the argument of State on account of Unjust enrichment noting that the respondent did not collect any amount towards electricity duty.CIT Versus NALWA INVESTMENTS LTD (Delhi High Court) [TS-390-HC-2020(DEL)]/ [2020] 118 taxmann.com 278 (Delhi) / (2020) 427 ITR 229 (Del)
Receipt of shares of amalgamated company by the shareholders of amalgamating company in lieu of their shareholding in amalgamating company is transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) and 45 of Income Tax Act,1961. If on the date of amalgamation, the shareholders of amalgamating company held those shares as capital asset, such transfer would be exempt from capital gains tax under section 47(vii).If on the other hand such shares were held as stock-in-trade, such transaction would be taxable as normal business income under section 28. Capital gains taxation scheme of 1961 Act in the form of S. 2(14), 2(47), 45 and 47 is different from similar scheme under section 12B of Income Tax Act,1922. Therefore, Supreme Court Judgement in CIT Vs Rasiklal Maneklal HUF (1989) 177 ITR 198 (SC) rendered under Income Tax Act, 1922 is not applicable to an amalgamation under 1961 Act. Such amalgamation is governed by CIT Vs Grace Collis (2001) 248 ITR 323 (SC)Parle International Limited Vs Union of India & Ors
The Bombay high court in the above case dealing with an order in original which was passed in the year 2019 in pursuance of a Show cause notice which was issued in the year 2006 and which was responded by the Company at that time itself and all of a sudden after 13 years the proceedings were revived and order passed towards CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods under CENVAT credit rules. The court noted decision of Bombay High court in the case of Bhagwan S Tolani Vs B C Agarwal (1983) 12 ELT 44 that even when no limitation for passing an order is prescribed in law, limitation would have to be read in to it otherwise if such contentions as to limitation were to be accepted, it would mean that the department can commence adjudication proceedings 10 years, 15 years or 20 years after the original show-cause notice was issued which could not be permitted. Larger public interest requires that revenue should adjudicate the show-cause notice expeditiously and within a reasonable period. What would be the reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but certainly a period of 13 years cannot be termed as a reasonable period. On these facts the show cause notice and order passed thereupon were quashed and set aside.Shri Vijay Kumar Wanchoo v. ITO Ward 2(5), NOIDA, UP
Where the assessee sold in AY 2009-10 by two different registered transfer deeds, two flats which were used as residence by amalgamating both into one single unit and invested the capital gains in one new residential house, exemption u/s 54 could not be denied. Relying on ITAT Mumbai's order in DCIT v. Ranjit Vithaldas in ITA No. 7443/Mum/2002 and in ACIT 18(1) Mumbai v. Sh. Dinesh A Vora in ITA 5547/Mum/2011 it was held that Capital gains arising from more than one residential houses and invested in one residential house shall entail exemption under section 54.Appeal of the assessee was thus allowedITAT Mumbai To Resume Physical Hearings, On Experimental Basis, With Effect From 7th December 2020
Shri Pramod Kumar, the Hon'ble Vice President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, has issued a notice dated 3rd December 2020 stating that the Mumbai benches intend to resume physical functioning, on an experimental basis and in a limited manner, with effect from 7th December, 2020. A detailed SOP has also been issuedPorus Kaka Called To The Bar Of England & Wales
Field Court Tax Chambers are delighted to announce that Mr Kaka has been called to the Bar of England & Wales in a virtual ceremony conducted by Gray's InnIncome Tax Search And Seizure Assessments – No Universal Application Of The "Extrapolation Technique" In Search Assessments
CA Mohit Gupta has pointed out that the Income-tax department usually relies on the extrapolation principle in search assessments to make arbitrary additions even for years where no incriminating material has been unearthed. He has considered whether the Department is justified in doing so and explained the entire law on the subject with reference to leading judicial precedents__._,_.___
Posted by: "editor@itatonline.org" <itatonline.org@gmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
.
__,_._,___
0 comments:
Post a Comment