The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5 (1) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The party vide its letter dated 16.10.2017 (copy enclosed), informed that their eligible ITC credit for the month of July, 2017, was Rs 16,948/ each under CGST and SGST and that while taking credit, the SGST credit, due to server error, was credited in their GSTR 38 of July, 2017, as Rs 16,94,76,948/-. Further, the party has informed that, they have mailed twice to GST help desk for rectification (copy enclosed).
Merely on the reasoning that liability in respect of some of the sundry creditors have remained outstanding for about three years the assessing officer has concluded that they have to be treated as income of the assessee in the impugned assessment year as they have ceased to exist as per section 41(1) of the Act.
As a part of the day to day functioning of the Department, officers are/will be required to issue letters, notices, orders to Income Tax assessees or other addressees within the Department or outside by using digital signature. CBDT has already mandated filing of APAR online through ITBA-HRMS system.
While hearing the case between Cellular Operators Association of India vs Union of India, the Delhi High Court rejected the claim to allow credit of the unutilized education and higher education cess.
Notification No.13/2018-Customs (N.T.) CBEC hereby determines rate of exchange of conversion of each of foreign currencies wef 16.02.2018
Notification No. 12/2018-CUSTOMS (N.T.) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise & Customs, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do, hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance
Certain amendments/corrections have been made to Table 2 of Appendix 3B of FTP 2015-20 to align them with the ITC(HS) codes 2017 for exports made w.e.f. 01.01.2017.
While the process of Applications Supported By Block Amount (ASBA) has resulted in almost complete elimination of complaints pertaining to refunds, there have been instances where the applicants in an Initial Public Offering have failed to get allotment of specified securities and in the process may have suffered an opportunity loss due to the following factors:
Jaspreet Kalra Vs. Union of India (High Court of Uttarakhand) It is the contention of learned senior counsel that the vehicle of the petitioner has been seized by respondent no.3 thereby imposing a penalty of Rs.5,03,125/- equal to the IGST (the tax amount) on the technical ground that the validity of e-way bill had expired […]
