Raw enterprises Vs The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) Madras High Court held that as per provisions of section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 departmental authorities need to take decision on provisional release application. Petitioner directed to furnish fresh application u/s 110A as against the allegation that application is not in prescribed […]
Allahabad High Court rejected the bail application filed u/s. 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 on the basis of gravity of offence and the criminal antecedents.
Delhi High Court held that levy of interest under section 234E of the Income Tax Act is illegal for returns of TDS in respect of the period prior to 01.06.2015. Accordingly, directed to be deleted.
ITAT Amritsar held that provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act is inapplicable as assessee does not maintain any books of accounts. Mere possession of pass book cannot be treated as books of accounts. Accordingly, addition u/s 68 unsustainable.
ITAT Pune held that as receipts from business activity is more than 20% of the total receipts, character of charitable purpose as given in section 2(15) will be lost and accordingly, exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act not available.
Madras High Court held that initiation of coercive recovery proceedings, by exercising power under section 45 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, without passing of assessment order is invalid and unsustainable.
CESTAT Mumbai held that as per rule 7B(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the claimant is required to submit a revised return. Accordingly, as the claimant failed to furnish the same refund is not admissible.
ITAT Delhi directed fresh adjudication to verify whether notice was served upon to the legal heir after the death of the assessee and also to verify the correct name of the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that TDS under section 194C (and not 194-I) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is deductible in case of Common Area Maintenance Charges (CAM Charges).
Madras High Court held that invocation of extended period of limitation unjustified as non-disclosure or claim of non-liability was on the basis of bonafide interpretation of law.
