While the seized betel nuts are not required for the purpose of investigation, as is apparent from the report of the I.O., the grounds, so assigned for rejection of zimma petition, filed by the petitioner, by the learned court below, seems to be not in conformity with the law, so laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2002.
Satya Power & Ispat Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The issue is whether the appellant is liable to pay central excise duty on removal of iron ore fines/iron ore concentrates? Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that in the de-novo proceedings, the lower authority without appreciating the submissions made […]
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan has been appointed as member of Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority in the place of Mr. Rajiv Magoo. FINANCE DEPARTMENT Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, dated the 13th September 2022. NOTIFICATION MAHARASHTRA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017. No. GST-1022/C.R.38/Taxation-1.— In exercise of the powers conferred by section […]
These instructions are guidelines for filling the particulars in Income-tax Return Form-5 for the Assessment Year 2022-23 relating to the Financial Year 2021-22.
Sudhir Kumar Tiwari Vs ITO (ITAT Allahabad) It is apparent that the Assessing Officer initially initiated the scrutiny proceedings to examine the cash deposit of Rs. 18,00,000/- during the demonetization period. However, on verification of the bank account as well as the reply of the assessee as well as bank, the Assessing Officer found that […]
HC held that National Highway Authority is the best judge to decide which land would be suitable for the construction of the Highways.
For considering value for refund under Section 173L of Central Excise Act, what is required to be considered is value of returned goods
NCLT held that it is the Liquidator who has to take call on what mode of sale is in the best in the interest of maximization of value of assets.
Adjudicating Authority under Rule 43 of NCLT Rules, 2016, can call for any information or evidence as it may consider necessary in its discretion
Sudipta Basu Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court is of the view that Section 119(2)(b) of the Act read with CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 provides a remedy to the Assessees to seek condonation of delay, in cases where Assessee could not file their income tax returns within time due to genuine hardship. Consequently, […]
