Sunaiba Industries Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) The petitioner is the selling dealer of the goods. The goods were being transported from Delhi to Kanpur in 30 builties. Only on account of improper invoice in respect of some of the builites, the goods have been seized and directed to be released on furnishing […]...

Armour Steel Buildings India (P) Ltd. Vs Asstt. State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) The petitioner, an assessee under the GST Act in Tamil Nadu, sent goods across to the State. The Assistant State Tax Officer intercepted the goods and detained them. After the initial procedural formalities the petitioner suffered an order under section ...

PCIT v. M/S Broadway Shoe Co. (Jammu & Kashmir High Court) Admittedly in the instant case, the return was filed by the assessee after the time prescribed for filing return under Sections 139(1) and 139(4) had expired. Therefore, the return filed by the assessee has to be treated as non-est. The proceedings under Section 147 of [&hell...

PCIT Vs Executor of Estate of Late Smt. Manjula A. Shah (Bombay High Court) From the record, it can thus be seen that there were two significant factors why the CIT(A) and the Tribunal did not adopt the valuation of the stamp authority for the purpose of collecting capital gain tax in the hands of the assessee. Firstly, there was...

Tribunal/CESTAT is utterly unjustified in rejecting the appeal before it on a hyper-technical ground i.e. an apparent defect in the appeal format. Ordinarily a judicial tribunal – like CESTAT is expected to permit rectification of such an obvious error; that it instead chose to dismiss the appeal altogether is shocking to say the least...

Addition made under section 68 consequent to notice issued under section 153C was deleted because the AO had initiated assessment proceedings under section 153C for the relevant assessment years without pointing out or referring to any seized document belonging to those years and, therefore, there was no prima facierationale or logic behi...

Hon'ble HC held that an entity which falls within the definition of the micro/small enterprise will be treated as a ‘supplier’ under Section 2(n) of the MSMED Act even if it has not filed a Memorandum as required under Section 8(1) of the MSMED Act....

In the present case, the writ was filed by one of the student involved in the ragging who was suspended from the current academic year by the disciplinary committee of the institution. In the writ the student plead that being the bright student such suspension would ruin his future....

In terms of the provisions of section 245H of the Act, no immunity from penalty and prosecution can be granted by the ITSC since the complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under section 276 CC of the Act, was instituted before the receipt of the application under section 245C....

M/s Etiam Emedia Limited Vs ITO (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Conclusion:  Reopening of assessment was justified as there was specific information available with the authorities that assessee was a dummy concern used to route unaccounted money by way of bogus share application money. It was not a case of mere suspicion, it was a case, whe...