Praveen Jain Vs DGGI (Patiala House Court) FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATIALA HOUSE COURT This is the second bail application moved on behalf of accused. The accused has been transited from the court of Ld. SCJM, Rohtak and all firms /companies involved in the present case are registered in Delhi. It is submitted that as […]
Prakash Babu Nakundhi Krishna Reddy Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the Assessee that there are withdrawals and deposits in the cash book and the source of deposits can be explained by the Assessee with supporting evidence. It was submitted that it is an accepted rule that a […]
Shilpa Medicare Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Provisions of Sec. 35(2AB) of Income Tax Act, nowhere suggest simply that R& D facility is approved from particular date and in other words, it is no where suggested that date of approval only will be cut off date for eligibility. The court further held that once facility […]
Bhushan s/o Brijmohan Katta Vs State Of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court -Nagpur Bench) All that is alleged in the present case is that though the petitioner was on duty, he was not physically present in the NICU at the fateful moment. No material has been placed before us that whenever an injection has to be […]
In re Karma Buildcon (GST AAAR Gujarat) In para 2 of Not No. 11/2017-CT (Rate), as amended vide Not. No. 01/2018-CT (Rate), there is deemed provisions that the value of transfer of land or undivided share of land, as the case may be, and the value of such transfer of land or undivided share of […]
In re Amneal Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAAR Gujarat) We observe that the GAAR has ruled that the Goods and Services Tax is applicable on the amount recovered from employees, mainly on the premises that ‘the appellant is supplying food to its employees’, which would be covered under the definition of the term ‘business’ under […]
Case No. AD-SSR-12/2020 Sunset review investigation concerning imports of 2-Ethyl Hexanol Originating in or exported from European Union, Indonesia, Korea RP, Malaysia, Taiwan and United States of America.
In this case, it is not the case of the Corporation that the employees concerned did not need to avail any conveyance expenditure to report for duty to their place of work, or otherwise in connection with their duties under their contracts of employment. Nor is there any such finding. We see no reason why Conveyance Allowance should not be excluded from the definiti
Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) Bill of Entry amendment in manual form when ICES portal not supports such amendment: In a case involving erroneous mention of GSTIN in the Bill of Entry, the Madras High Court has allowed manual correction. The Petitioner’s request for amendment of GSTN in Bill of […]
Sakul Nazar Mohmd Vs State of Gujarat (Gujrat High Court) Mr. Varis Isani, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant informs this Court that during the pendency of this writ application, the final order of confiscation in Form GST MOV 11 has already been passed. In that view of the matter, we relegate the […]
