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 […]
In the present case, the appellant clearly sought an operational service from the Proprietary Concern when it contracted with them for the supply of light fittings. Further, when the contract was terminated but the Proprietary Concern nonetheless encashed the cheque for advance payment, it gave rise to an operational debt in favor of the appellant, which now remains unpaid. Hence, the appellant is an operational creditor under Section 5(20) of the IBC.
State of Manipur & Ors. Vs Surjakumar Okram & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Facts- The main contention in the appeal is that the declaration of the Assam Act, 2004 as unconstitutional does not per se render the 2012 Act invalid. It was argued that Bimolangshu Roy was wrongly decided and should be held to be […]
DCIT Vs Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Facts-Assessment u/s 153C was challenged on the grounds that assessment order dated 31.3.2016 u/s 153C/143(3) was passed without dropping the proceedings initiated vide notice dated 8.9.2015 under section 153A of the Act and disposing off the objection filed by the assessee to initiation of assessment proceedings. Further, […]
