Gauhati High Court held that rejected the pre-arrest bail as the informant referred to mobile call screenshots which project that the petitioner repeatedly called him to mount pressure to compromise the matter.
Calcutta High Court held that purchasing dealer is entitled for concessional rate of tax as they have fulfilled the conditions in Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Form “C” declarations having been verified and found to be in order by the concerned authority of the State of West Bengal. Thus, purchasing dealer are entitled to claim a refund of tax directly from the State of West Bengal and they are not required to make the claim through the selling dealer, IOCL.
Jharkhand High Court rejected the bail application as the person is likely to hamper the investigation as already there were attempts to submit the false certificate to obtain the benefit on medical grounds. Further, if the bail is granted, the petitioner is also likely to temper the evidences.
Orissa High Court held that concluded assessment could not be reopened by the Assessing Authority merely on the basis of audit objection.
Madras High Court held that that the scope of interference to a show-cause notice by a writ Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is very limited, barring few exceptions, like lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process of law, etc. Here, writ petition entertained as show cause notice issued on lack of jurisdiction.
ITAT Delhi held that benefit of exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act duly available as the income tax return was filed within the specified time limit of sub-section 139 of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Mumbai held that there are no allegations/ evidence that demonstrate that the customs broker didnt demonstrate speed and efficiency in respect of the impugned goods and hence there is no contravention of regulation 10(n) of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018
ITAT Kolkata held that as per board’s instruction CBDT circular 1/2011 dated 31.01.2011, in the case of non-corporate assessee in non-metro cities, the ITR filed upto Rs. 15 lacs has to be assessed by ITO and therefore in the instant case the assessment is framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in is void, ultra vires and nullity in the eyes of law.
Madras High Court held that an order of settlement brings the entire dispute to an end and the same includes co-noticees as well. As Settlement Commissioner has granted immunity to the importer, no proceedings can be continued against CHA in same transaction.
ITAT Kolkata held that income from sale transaction of impugned land property by applying provisions of section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act should be done after obtaining the pending valuation report from DVO to arrive at fair market value as on the date of conversion.
