Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Arihantam Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2, Nashik and Vica-Versa

Disallowance of commission paid to the Directors / shareholders - enhancement of income - assessee had claimed expenditure of ₹ 1 crore on account of commission paid to three main directors - CIT(A) had disallowed the claim of the assessee on the premise that where dividend was to be paid out of the profits of the assessee company, the payment of commission to the directors was hit by the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act - Held that:- The CIT(A) has not held the payment made to t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

requirement of business and the actual services rendered by the persons concerned. Looking at the nature of sub-contract executed by the assessee which is in specialized field, it cannot be held that the same was carried out without the efforts of concerned directors. In any case, the businessman is the best person to decide its affairs and expenditure cannot be disallowed on any surmises. We find merit in the plea of the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that in case the concer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d before the close of year, the same cannot be brushed aside and the said expenditure was disallowed in the hands of assessee on mere surmises. In view thereof, we hold that where the directors had given services and in recognition thereof, there was proposal to pay commission to the said directors, then the same could not be questioned merely on the basis of speculation by the Revenue that the same was to avoid payment of dividend tax.

The assessee company had paid the commission to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8377; 1 crore. Accordingly, we direct so. - Decided in favour of assessee

Disallowance of deduction on account of expenditure incurred on construction of road and RCC chambers - Assessing Officer had re-computed the work in progress of the assessee by including the aforesaid amounts as part of work in progress - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- As held that the construction of site road is not capital expenditure and the same is allowable as revenue expenditure. The A.O. has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

herefore, deleted.

As regards the expenditure on RCC chambers, it has been noticed that the appellant has incurred the expenditure and paid the same to the sub-contractor M/s.SMPL, who carried out the said work. As per the standard practice all the irrigation projects are to be approved by Central Design Organization, Nashik i.e. CDO, Nashik. The CDO has reviewed the irrigation projects and recommended latest surge protection devices, which needed to be imported from abroad. As per th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

31/3/2009 is found to be correct and hence accepted. The addition is therefore, deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.2201/PN/2012, ITA No.2280/PN/2012, ITA No.1767/PN/2013 - Dated:- 30-11-2015 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM For The Assessee : Shri Sunil Pathak For The Department : Shri B.C. Malakar ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: Out of this bunch of appeals, cross-appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are against the order of CIT(A)-II, Nashik, dated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA No.2201/PN/2012 has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition / enhancing income of ₹ 1,00,00,000/-. (Rs.1 crores). 2. On the facts and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the commission of ₹ 1 crore was paid for the services rendered by directors / shareholders, which resulted into substantial increase in turnover and profit. 3. On the facts and in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xpenditure. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the expenditure on construction of Road and RCC Chambers was not yielding any extra income as admitted by the assessee itself before the Appellate Authority and as such it was not for business purpose and hence not allowable. 3) The appellant craves leave to amend, add, alter the above grounds, if felt necessary, later. 5. The assessee in ITA No.1767/PN/2013 has raised the following g .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

isions of section 36(1)(ii) are not applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant. Your appellant craves, leave to add, alter, delete above or any other ground/s of appeal. 6. The issue arising in the appeals filed by assessee both in assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 is against the disallowance of commission paid to the Directors / shareholders. The facts and issue are identical in both the appeals. However, reference is being to the facts and issue in ITA No.2201/PN/2012. 7. Briefly, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e contract from SMP Ltd., Jalgaon. The assessee in this regard had raised bills for ₹ 10.49 crores, against which work was allotted to ICSA and GPT Pipe Industries Limited. The Assessing Officer further considered the contract receipts received by the assessee from M/s. Siddhartha Construction and the explanation filed by the assessee in this regard and disallowed certain expenditure. One of the additions made by the Assessing Officer was on account of work in progress. The Assessing Offic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed to the extent of ₹ 74,66,434/- was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 8. The CIT(A) deleted certain additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of site office, motorable road, etc., against which Revenue is not in appeal. Further, the CIT(A) also deleted addition on account of underestimation of work in progress by calculating the work in progress at ₹ 2.37 crores as against work in progress shown by the assessee at ₹ 1.63 crores, resulting in additio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re on construction of RCC delivery chamber, the assessee claimed that the said construction had been lost due to the revised Board Conceptual Layout, which was finalized on 10.02.2009, hence the said expenditure of ₹ 45,55,000/- incurred on construction of RCC delivery chambers was claimed as revenue expenditure. The CIT(A) vide paras 7.5 and 7.6 allowed the claim of assessee, in view of terms of tender document, in which the assessee was required to make approach road and also the expendi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion claimed. The said show cause notice is reproduced under para 13 of the appellate order of CIT(A). In response to the same, the assessee furnished reply which is incorporated under para 13.1 at pages 33 to 36 of the appellate order. The CIT(A) observed that in addition to remuneration of ₹ 30 lakhs, commission of ₹ 1 crore was paid to three directors. The CIT(A) was of the view that where the assessee company had earned substantial profits to the tune of ₹ 93.48 lakhs, the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng Officer had failed to bring on record any evidence that the payment of commission commensurated with the market value of services. He further observed that the Assessing Officer had not considered the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act at all. Hence, the contention of assessee that the Assessing Officer had verified the said transaction of commission payment to the directors, was held to be not tenable by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) then, traced the work of lift irrigation system and the c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rb of commission. Only ₹ 1,90,000/- was proposed as dividend available out of profit of ₹ 93.48 lakh available for appropriation after payment of commission of ₹ 1 crore. The CIT(A) held that there was no justification in the contention of the assessee that increase in turnover / profit was due to extra efforts of the directors. As per the CIT(A), the payment was made with an intention to avoid full payment of taxes, hence, the contention of the assessee that there was no tax e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nted out that the assessee had paid commission of ₹ 1 crore to three directors in addition to the remuneration paid to them. The Assessing Officer had allowed the deduction on account of both remuneration and commission. However, the CIT(A) enhanced the income and disallowed commission paid to the directors. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee fairly admitted that the commission was not paid in shareholding pattern, but was paid on account of services rendered by the dir .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is placed at page 128 of the Paper Book. Further, the contention of the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee was that all the directors were tax payers and in view of the profits earned by the assessee company, the Resolution was passed on 30.03.2009 to pay the said commission. Generally, the Resolution to pay the commission is passed in March of close of the year. It was further explained by him that the commission was paid to three directors out of total of six directors. The lea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llowability of the claim of expenditure:- (i) CIT Vs. Career Launcher India Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 179 (Del) (ii) AMD Metplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2012) 341 ITR 563 (Del) (iii) New Silk Route Advisors (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2015) 55 taxmann.com 540 (Mumbai - Trib) (iv) K.L. Concast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2013) 35 CCH 431 (Delhi - Trib) 12. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that the CIT(A) had denied the said deduction as there was no evidence of extra services .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pointed out that apart from the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Ac, the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act were much more rigorous i.e. the related party transaction. Reference was made to the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT. Vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Private Limited (2009) 310 ITR 306 (Bom) for the proposition that if the payee has been paid, then there is no tax avoidance and hence, there was no disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 13. The learned D .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or the Revenue further pointed out that there was no such terms of employment and in any case, the decision to pay the commission was at the fag end of the year. 14. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoinder pointed out that the evidence of services rendered by the said directors is imminent as both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have allowed the salary and the commission was paid at the end of the year. 15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the reco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ee in the statement of facts filed before the CIT(A) had explained the nature of contracts to be the work of Lift Irrigation projects primarily involves lifting the flood water from rivers during the monsoon, using mechanical means like pumps, transporting the water by M.S. pipes and subsequently filling an earthen dam / reservoir at required elevation. Thereafter, the water stored in the dam is utilized during the balance year to irrigate the neighboring fields using gravity, etc. as per the te .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ness in order to facilitate smooth and efficient movement of men and machinery / equipment. For the year under consideration, the turnover of the assessee company was ₹ 10.62 crores. The assessee had declared profit of ₹ 1,17,60,552/- and had debited commission to directors at ₹ 1 crore against the same. The claim of the assessee before the CIT(A), who had issued enhancement notice to the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings, was that the turnover and the above m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

contract had to be complied with by the assessee on behalf of the contractor. The assessee had not appointed any managerial person for managing the business, but on the other hand, the business was managed by the directors of the company. The directors of the assessee company belonged to Kotecha group, who had been awarded the contract work by TIDC and in order to execute the work, extra efforts were put in by the directors of the assessee company at the site and in view of these extra efforts o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lakhs and ₹ 25 lakhs, respectively. The other three directors were not paid any commission. The claim of the assessee before us was that the said three directors had put in extra efforts to obtain the sub-contract and further to execute it during the year, which resulted in higher profits and hence, the decision by the directors of the assessee company to pay commission to the said persons. The assessee has placed on record the Agreement executed for award of sub-contract by M/s. Siddhart .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

obligations of the contractor and the subcontractor are provided in the said Agreement. Admittedly, the assessee has carried on the aforesaid sub-contract work during the year under consideration. The income arising from the said work contract has been offered to tax by the assessee. In view of the awarding and earning of contract of ₹ 70 crores, the efforts of the three directors was acknowledged by the five directors of the assessee company, who were present in the meeting of Board of D .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e execution of all the work and also management of the project. Another director Shri Prakash K. Kotecha was in-charge of accounts, banking and taxation. The commission paid to the three directors was as follows:- Directors Name Commission Prakash K. Kotecha Rs.40,00,000 Sachin Prakash Kotecha Rs.35,00,000 Rahul Prakash Kotecha Rs.25,00,000 17. The assessee in the written submissions filed before the CIT(A) has also filed detailed break-up of monthly sales / receipts totaling ₹ 10,49,59,69 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances, the issue arising before us is whether the assessee company is entitled to the claim of deduction of ₹ 1 crore paid as commission to the directors. 18. Under the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act, it is provided that the bonus or commission paid would be allowed as deduction without any restriction subject to the provisions of section 43B of the Act, wherein it is provided that the said amount would be allowed as deducti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

isions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. The CIT(A) has not held the payment made to the directors to be excessive in view of the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act, which is a safeguard for controlling the payment to relatives or connected persons. Under the amended provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act, there is no restriction on the quantum of payment. However, the spirit of section that where the expenditure has been incurred in connection with carrying on of the business, the same .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lea of the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that in case the concerned entity was a partnership concern, under the provisions of section 40(b) of the Act, 60% of the profits of business could be allowed as remuneration to the partners of the said entity. The assessee has furnished the details of directors remuneration and commission paid to the directors and the total of the same does not exceeds 60% of the profits. Merely because the assessee is a private limited company and h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e out of total profits of ₹ 93.48 lakhs available for appropriation, proposed dividend amounting to ₹ 1.90 lakhs only and the taxes on distributed profits were ₹ 0.30 lakhs. In view thereof, we hold that where the directors had given services and in recognition thereof, there was proposal to pay commission to the said directors, then the same could not be questioned merely on the basis of speculation by the Revenue that the same was to avoid payment of dividend tax. The assesse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dend with the objective of avoiding taxes. The Hon ble Delhi High Court held as under:- 43. The final question that arises for this Court's determination in the present appeal is the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of the bonus paid by it to its two shareholders - Ashish Dhawan and Kunal Shroff. The lower authorities denied such claim, holding that the bonus was paid to the shareholders in lieu of dividend with the objective of avoiding tax. S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

older directors in the preceding two financial years were in the ratio of 60-65%: 40-35%, even though their shareholding was 1:1. The balance sheet of the assessee placed on record also indicates that the two shareholders also hold directorial positions in the assessee. Therefore, the assessee's contention that the bonus was paid to the shareholders in their managerial capacity, like in the case of other managers, cannot be questioned merely on the basis of a speculation by the revenue that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

series of decisions. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in AMD Metplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) has laid down the ratio that where commission was paid as part and parcel of salary and TDS was deducted and where the director was liable to pay tax on both the salary and component in the commission, no disallowance was warranted under section 36(1)(ii) of the Act on the surmise that the dividend had to be paid to the shareholders in terms of the Companies Act. The Hon ble High Court further held that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e distribution of dividend or profits in the guise of commission. Where commission was paid as a form of remuneration for actual services rendered, the dividend was a return on investment and was to be paid to all the shareholders equally. It was thus, held that if the commission was paid for actual services rendered, provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act would not apply. 21. Another aspect to be kept in mind while allowing the claim of the assessee is that where the commission has been pai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essee company had paid the commission to the directors, who in turn had declared the same in their individual return of income, on which taxes have been paid and applying the simili laid down by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in such circumstances, no disallowance was warranted in the hands of payer as there was no attempt to avoid tax. 22. The CIT(A) while disallowing the claim of assessee had found support from the ratio laid down by the Mumbai Special Bench of Tribunal in Dalal Broacha Stock B .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ission paid to managing director was not justified by applying the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in AMD Metplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra). In view thereof, the reliance placed upon by the Revenue on ratio laid down by the Mumbai Special Bench of Tribunal in Dalal Broacha Stock Broking (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (supra) was held to be not correct, in view of the decision of Hon ble High Court, wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of deduction on account of commission paid to the directors for the services rendered by them at ₹ 1 crore. Accordingly, we direct so. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed. 24. The facts and issue raised in ITA No.1767/PN/2013 are identical to the facts and issues in ITA No.2201/PN/2012 and following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction on account of commission of ₹ 1.10 crores. 25. Now, coming to the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on of ₹ 74,66,434/- on account of alleged under estimation of work in progress by calculating work in progress at ₹ 2.37 crores as against work in progress shown by the assessee at ₹ 1.63 crores. The Assessing Officer made the said addition as per his observations in para 6.8 (VIII) at page 15 of the assessment order. 28. Before the CIT(A), the contention of the assessee was that from the assessment order, it could not be inferred as to on what account, the Assessing Officer ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Bill. 30. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the Assessing Officer had allowed the deduction on account of other roads constructed by the assessee except the road from Rigaon to site. Our attention was drawn to the details furnished at page 98 of the Paper Book. It was further clarified by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that the said road would not be the asset of the assessee company after the project was completed. In respect of seco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enditure on RCC chambers of ₹ 45,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer had re-computed the work in progress of the assessee by including the aforesaid amounts as part of work in progress. However, the claim of the assessee was that the said expenditure was allowable as revenue expenditure and could not be included in the work in progress. The CIT(A) vide paras 7.5 and 7.6 observed as under:- 7.5 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and rival contentions. On perusal of the same it ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te road from Rigaon is to be included in W.I.P. In this regard the appellant has pointed out that the contractee is not required to pay any consideration towards site road and hence the said expenditure cannot form the part of W.I.P. This contention of the appellant is supported by tender document. In view of the above facts, I am of the considered view that the A.O. is not justified in making the addition of ₹ 36,02,535/- by holding that the site road is to be included in WIP. The additio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

Forum: GST on RCM on rent in a unregistered state

Forum: COMPOSITION SCHEME

Forum: Input Tax Credit - Reg

Forum: GST Invoice

Article: Websites of Government Departments need lot of improvement. We are noticing detoriations in them for example, case of website of ITAT.

Highlight: Levy of additions tax u/s 115O on distribution of dividend - shares of its profits declared as distributable among the shareholders is not impressed with the character of the profit from which it reaches the hands of the shareholder - not to be bifurcated as agriculture and non-agriculture dividend - SC

Highlight: Rate of GST on old and scrap buses - 28% or 18% - at such initial tender process initiated by the Respondents-KSRTC, the present petitions filed by the petitioners are premature and misconceived and do not require any interference by this Court at this stage. - HC

Forum: Rent a cab operator

Highlight: In view of amendment made u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act of 2017, the 'reason to believe' or 'reason to suspect', as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal, SC dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Highlight: Validity of Assessment Order - period of limitation u/s 153 (2A) is applicable even if the entire order was not set aside but matter was remanded back for for limited aspects with directions - HC

News: Note ban was a shake-up, achieved its main objectives

Notification: Amendments in the notification No.5/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated the 28th June, 2017.

Highlight: Levying interest u/s 234C - interest is to be charged on the returned income and not on assessed income.

Highlight: Accrual of income - sale of right to develop and sell incentive FSI under LOI - till the conditions of LOI are fulfilled transfer is not complete and income does not accrue to the assessee

Highlight: TPA - determination of ALP - TP adjustment by applying Bright Line Test (BLT) is not sustainable on protective basis having no statutory mandate.

Highlight: Safeguard Duty - Advance License Scheme - as there is no exemption from safeguard duty leviable under Section 8C, which is imposed on the goods imported from China, the importer has to pay safeguard duty

Highlight: Manufacture - process of cutting of waste plastic container - Such plastic containers before and after cutting are nothing but waste / scrap - Not a manufacturing activity as no new product emerges.

News: NITI Aayog and Govt. of Assam organizes workshop on health sector reforms in Guwahati; launches SATH- Sustainable Action for Transforming Human Capital

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 5/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding restriction of refund on corduroy fabrics

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst exemptions

Forum: GSTR 3B Rectification

Notification: seeks to exempt Skimmed milk powder, or concentrated milk

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to GST council decisions regarding GST exemptions.

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates.

News: Notification Issued For GST Actionable Claim On Branded Food Products

Highlight: Classification printed computer stationary/manifold Business Forms - to be classified under Chapter Heading 4820.00 or under Chapter Heading 4901.90 - items like A4 sheets, advertisement and job card to be classified under Chapter 49

Article: RCM Applicability to persons not liable to get registered us 23(1)

Article: Credit of unsold stock [Section 140(3)] - Actual Credit as well as Notional Credit - Part-I - GST Transitional provisions

News: GST Refund - Blockage of Working Capital of Exporters - earlier also there was a normal blockage of funds for a period of 5-6 months at least

News: Clarification about Transition Credit - ₹ 1.27 lakh crore of credit of Central Excise and Service Tax was lying as closing balance as on 30th June, 2017 - claim of credit of ₹ 65,000 crore is not unexpected

Article: 20 Things You must know about E Way Bills in GST Law

Article: MISTAKES IN DRAFTING

Highlight: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg. - Circular

Highlight: The definition of "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary" u/s 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall come into force w.e.f. 20-9-2017

Highlight: Central Government notified the All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017 - Notification

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017

Circular: Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors in Corporate Debt Securities Review

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: List of Exempted supply of services under the CGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under CGST Act

Highlight: Acceptance of deposits by companies from its members - conditions relaxed in case of Specified IFSC Public company and a private company - Rule 3 amended

Notification: Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 8th September, 2017

News: Tax Payers Advised To Confirm Identities Of Income Tax Search Authorities

Notification: Amendment in Appendix 3 (SCOMET items) to Schedule- 2 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items 2012

Notification: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017

Circular: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg.



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version