Pintu Tyagi Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & -
Penalty under Rule 26 was justified on the proof that there were sufficient evidences adduced to allege clandestine removal and appellant had in his statement recorded under section 14 while giving the details of working of the unit had admitted that he was actively involved in the working of the unit....
Tirupati Trading Corporation Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) -
Delhi High Court held that a mistake has been made in triggering reassessment proceedings against the petitioner as no impugned transactions have been carried out by the assessee and accordingly, re-assessment proceedings initiated u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act is set aside....
Discover the crucial functions of the Registrar of Companies (RoC) in India's company registration process. Learn how RoC ensures legal compliance and transparency....
Manu Khosla Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Delhi High Court) -
Delhi High Court granted bail as prolonged incarceration of a person overrides the statutory restriction contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)....
Explore Circular No. 14, 2023, offering income tax relief to co-operative sugar factories. Learn about amendments, benefits, and the application process. Act now!...
Invecta Technologies Private Limited Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana High Court) -
Telangana High Court held that the Registration of a document does not create any title. The action of non-registration of a document under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 does not prevent a person of the right to enjoy his property....
Anshul Jain Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Allahabad) -
CESTAT Allahabad held that legal ownership and acquisition of gold proved via documentary evidence on the other hand, the Department has not been able to provide any iota of evidence to show that the seized gold bar was smuggled. Thus confiscation under Section 121 Customs Act is unsustainable...
Commr. of Cen. Exc. Ahmedabad Vs Urmin Products P. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) -
Supreme Court held that Notification No. 2 of 2006 dated 01.03.2006 didn’t specify the goods falling under CET SH 2403 9930, i.e., ‘zarda/jarda scented tobacco’, but it covers the goods falling under CET SH 2403 9910 i.e., ‘chewing tobacco’....
Roop Bansal Vs Union of India (Punjab and Haryana High Court) -
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that non-conveying of grounds of arrest in writing is not sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 19 of the PMLA and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, arrest of the present petitioner illegal and cannot be sustained....
Explore key points for Chartered Accountants issuing CA certificates in GST. Learn about the specific ITC mismatch categories, responsibilities, and limitations...