Prosecution is a criminal proceeding. Therefore, based upon evidence gathered, offence and crime as defined in the relevant provision of the Act, the offence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. To ensure that only deserving cases get prosecuted the Central Board of Direct Taxes in exercise of powers under section 119 of the Act lays down the following criteria for launching prosecution in respect of the following categories of offences.
In re West Bengal Medical Services Corporation Ltd (AAR West Bengal) The Applicant has been set up under Notification No. HF/SPSRC/WBMSC/40/2008/162 dated 17/11/2008 of the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, as a fully owned body for managing the procurement of drugs and equipment for the medical colleges and hospitals and […]
The petitioner’s grievance that the work of important Tribunal like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should not be allowed to suffer on account of shortage of administrative staff is perfectly legitimate, however, we do not find any lethargy on the part of the Department in not filing up said posts.
ACIT Vs Shri Anil Gulabdas Shah (ITAT Mumbai) The undisputed position that emerges is the fact that the property under consideration was subject matter of extensive litigation which ultimate got culminated into sale of the property by the assessee in terms of consent terms dated 03/01/2012 between the assessee and certain other parties. The assessee, […]
IBBI approves MCA 21 database of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI) registry as repositories under regulation 21(2)(c)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Information Utilities) Regulations, 2017. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Place, […]
As allotment of property was final and payment of purchase consideration had been duly made before allotment, therefore, holding period of property had to be computed from the date of allotment, and not from the date of taking delivery of possession which was only a follow-up action.
High Ground Enterprises Ltd Vs UOI (Bombay High Court) Petitioner has sought to question the refusal by the Officers of the DGGI, Mumbai to supply documents to the Petitioner seized by the officers and also sought a direction to the Respondents to hand over copies of the documents seized in January 2019 Petitioner, in the […]
Additions in respect of which penalty was confirmed has been accepted by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, leading to substantial question of law. Thus when Hon’ble High Court admitted substantial question of law on additions, it becomes apparent that issue is certainly debatable. In such circumstances penalty cannot be levied under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act.
A correction has been made in the Appendix 3B, Table 2 to align/harmonize it with the ITC HS 2017/ Customs Tariff Schedule and the item entry is removed from the list of items, for which description matching is required to be done by RAs while processing the MEIS applications, as explained in Public Notice 68 […]
In re Konkan LNG Private Limited. (GST AAAR Maharashtra) The Maharashtra Appellate Authority confirmed the Maharashtra Advance Ruling Autority Order by holding that the Appellant is not eligible for taking ITC in terms of section 16 read with section 17 of the MGST ACT / CGST ACT ( CGST/ SGST / IGST ) on construction […]
