high court judgments - Page 30

PML Act, 2002 Provisions cannot be invoked Retrospectively

M/s Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt Ltd Vs Joint Director (Karnataka High Court)

By consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, all these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together, as similar questions of law are involved in these writ petitions, in order to avoid a conflicting judicial opinion. We are also informed that facts are, almost, identical....

Read More

High Pitched Assessment: AO/CIT cannot straightaway demand 15% payment

Flipkart India Private Limited Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court)

Undoubtedly, the present case raises the issue of balancing the interest of the Revenue, and the interest of an Needless to say, the Revenue does have the right to realise the assessed incometax amount from the assessee. However, while trying to realise the said amount, the Revenue cannot be permitted, and has not been permitted by the Ci...

Read More

ITAT cannot dismiss appeal without considering merits

Balaji Tirupati Enterprises Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another (Allahabad High Court)

It appears a little strange that when the assessee either himself or through his authorized representative is not attending the hearing to argue the case, still the Tribunal has to decide the appeal on merits. ...

Read More

In Departmental Proceedings, Inquiry Officer is Quasi Judicial Officer

Syed Mansoor Hasan Rizvi Vs Director, Local Bodies and others (Allahabad High Court)

It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer functions as quasi judicial officer. He is not merely a representative of the department....

Read More

Assessee need not continue compounding scheme till completion of work under KVAT Act

KNR Construction Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Works Contract) (Kerala High Court)

HC held that The mere fact that petitioner's work, which commenced in previous year, had been compounded for that year would not require continuance under the scheme in subsequent year, for reason of there being no provision available requiring such a continuance....

Read More

Can GST implementation end Tax Terrorism by State Revenue officials?

Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd Vs State of U.P. & Others (Allahabad High Court)

It clearly shows that State VAT department has literally plundered most of the assets of a company without any legal justification. Now, these commercial tax officials would also be part of GST machinery....

Read More

No deduction denial for mere non approval from Prescribed Authority: HC

M/S Shrikar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court)

HC held that that it was inappropriate and illegal on the part of Director General, Income Tax (Exemptions) not to take a decision on Assessee's application filed for seeking approval as required under Section 80IB(7)(c). ...

Read More

Bombay HC on eligibility for Benefit of Kar Vivad Scheme,1998

Sadhana Textile Mills Private Ltd., Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)

In the light of the above factual position and the two Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is conceded equally by the Department that their stand, as contained in the impugned letter, is unsustainable in law. The matter is covered by the said two Judgments. In the circumstances, we allow this writ petition and quash and se...

Read More

Corporate veil can be lifted if Company is used as a means to evade tax

Ajay Surendra Patel Vs DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

Hc held that opinion that such a huge tax evasion cannot be so lightly permitted on account of any hyper-technicality. The concept of lift or piercing of corporate veil, as sometimes referred to as cracking the corporate shell, is applied by the Courts sparingly...

Read More

VAT on Tractors: General Entry cannot override specific Entry

M/s Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Sales Tax (Bombay High Court)

In this case on the applicability of VAT Rate under Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 it was held by Bombay High Court that Tribunal was justified in holding that the bearings sold by the Applicant were covered by Entry C-II-146 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and not by Entry C-II102(2) as auto parts and C-II135 as tractor parts read with Ent...

Read More
Page 30 of 394« First...1020...2829303132...405060...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,453)
Company Law (3,347)
Custom Duty (6,579)
DGFT (3,419)
Excise Duty (4,040)
Fema / RBI (3,237)
Finance (3,415)
Income Tax (24,908)
SEBI (2,721)
Service Tax (3,278)

Search Posts by Date

August 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031