R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Disallowance of bogus purchases reduced to 2% when existence of some parties proved and payments were routed through bank Facts- The assessee is engaged in the application/job-work of Auto Additives and Car care Products across various two-wheelers and four-wheelers authorized service centers. It filed its ROI […]
Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs Vs Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (CESTAT Hyderabad) Facts- The assessee imported various equipment from Reliance Infra Projects and Zhejiang and cleared them by filing 36 Bills of Entry (BOE) with the Customs at Kakinada. BOE filed in the Customs EDI system are either marked to an officer for assessment or […]
The Court has held that even though there might be no reciprocity between India and another country under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, the notarial acts of the Notaries in the foreign country could be given legal recognition by the courts and authorities in India.
In the instant case, admittedly there has been no provisional release of the seized goods. Further extension of six months with the reasoned order by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs also is completely missing. The period of six months from the date of signature expired on 03.10.2019.
As held by Allahabad High Court in Mon Mohan Kohli Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, it is concluded that law prevailing on the date of issuance of notice under section 148 has to be applied.
Smt. Lata Garg Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Facts- The assessee is an individual and derived income from salary, income from house property, income from business or profession and income from other sources. It was alleged that there were certain bogus purchases. Accordingly, AO alleged adding the same to the total income of the assessee. Conclusion- […]
It is amply clear that the additions under sections 68 and 69C of the Act can be made provided the transaction takes place during the previous year / financial year. Further, for making addition under section 68 of the Act, the assessee must fail to offer explanation and for making addition under section 69C of the Act, the source of the expenditure must remain unproved. In the present case, the assessee had duly explained the sources of the credit and the expenditure, respectively.
The captioned matter pertains to import of Black Pepper of Sri Lankan origin, seizure of the same on alleged grounds of over valuation to circumvent a custom notification and the captioned matter pertains to release of consignment under Section 110A of ‘the Customs Act, 1962.
Held Issuance of warrant of attachment in respect of any property situated outside the local limits of jurisdiction is barred in view of the provisions of Section 39(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence, the executing Court at Rajkot was directed to examine the matter afresh.
Suneesh K.S. Vs Travancore Devaswom Board (Kerala High Court) Facts- The petitioner is the successful bidder in the auction conducted by the Board for the sale of pooja items and flower garlands inside Valliyamkavu Devi Temple from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022. Later on, the petitioner failed to deposit some of the instalments. The main reason for the […]
