The Competition Commission of India (CCI) passed a final order imposing penalty on Panasonic Energy India Co. Limited Panasonic) and Geep Industries (India) Private Limited (Geep) for colluding to fix prices of zinc-carbon dry cell batteries in India. In respect of Panasonic, CCI granted 100 percent reduction in penalty by invoking the provisions of Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act) read with the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 (Lesser Penalty Regulations).
M/s Viraat Traders Vs State of Punjab and others (Punjab and Haryana HC) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 23.05.2018 passed by Excise and Taxation Officer Ludhiana-3 cancelling the registration of the petitioner under the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘the Punjab GST Act’) It is not […]
Finding of AO is based merely on suspicion and surmises without any tangible material to show that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted income in the share of long term capital gain even otherwise the reliance of the statements recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata wherein without giving an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principles of natural justice
M/s. Balaji Construction Company Vs state Of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) It is stated that the petitioner had applied well in time for registration under the GST Act to enable him to migrate within a specific time period. In spite of various reminders, the concerned authorities have not completed the process of migration and now […]
CIT, Ghaziabad Vs. Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority (Supreme Court) The Supreme Court on Monday imposed a fine of Rs. 10 Lakh on the Income Tax Department for its casual approach and for giving a totally misleading statement in the case. This petition for special to leave has been filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad. First […]
Vogue Vestures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Bangalore) This issue was now covered by the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Mark Auto Industries Ltd (2013) 358 ITR 43 (P&H). wherein the High court held that in absence of any requirements in law for making deduction of […]
ITO Vs Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin (ITAT Jaipur) A consistent view has been taken by the various Hon’ble High Courts on this issue that when no limitation is provided in the statute then a period of four years is considered as reasonable for passing the order U/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The provisions of Section 206C […]
Mateen Pyarali Dholkia Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the instant case, the profit arising from the sale of shares was received by the assessee directly which constituted its income at the point when it reached or accrued to the assessee. The fee for PMS on the other hand was paid separately by the assessee to […]
DCIT Vs Saurabh Mittal (ITAT Jaipur) In absence of any contrary fact, the mere reliance by the Assessing Officer on the report of Investigation Wing, Kolkata is not sufficient to establish the fact that the transaction is bogus. The finding of the Assessing Officer is based merely on the suspicion and surmises without any tangible […]
Baniara Engineers Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) From the reading of Sec. 50C, it is evident that Sec. 50C is a deeming provision and it extends to only to land or building or both. Section 50C can come into play only in a situation where the consideration received or accruing as a result of […]
