All High Courts

HC order Release of Goods as Sale Transaction not attained Finality

Sunaiba Industries Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)

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 […]...

Read More

HC order release of good on payment of Tax of dealer not registered in that state

Armour Steel Buildings India (P) Ltd. Vs Asstt. State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)

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 ...

Read More

Notice U/s. 143(2) not must if return not furnished in response to Notice U/s. 148

PCIT v. M/S Broadway Shoe Co. (Jammu & Kashmir High Court)

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...

Read More

Valuation of stamp authority cannot be adopted in case of long gap between date of MOU execution and formal development agreement

PCIT Vs Executor of Estate of Late Smt. Manjula A. Shah (Bombay High Court)

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...

Read More

CESTAT unjustified in rejecting appeal for defect in appeal format: HC

Principal commissioner of central tax Vs Pymen Cable (India)

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...

Read More

Addition based on seized document related to year different than notice issued U/s. 153C not valid

Pr. CIT Vs Shrim Investment Solutions (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

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...

Read More

Unregistered MSME will also be treated as ‘supplier’ u/s 2(n) of MSMED Act

M/s Ramky Infrastructure Private Limited Vs Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & ANR (Delhi High Court)

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....

Read More

Ragging A Barbarous Practice – Gujarat HC

Jwalant Jitendra Vs Institute of Infrastructure (Gujarat High Court)

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....

Read More

Immunity from penalty & prosecution in case of complaint U/s. 200 Cr. P.C

PCIT Vs Orchid Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

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....

Read More

Specific info of bogus share application money cannot be treated as mere suspicion

M/s Etiam Emedia Limited Vs ITO (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

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...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,010)
Company Law (4,307)
Custom Duty (7,183)
DGFT (3,847)
Excise Duty (4,176)
Fema / RBI (3,586)
Finance (3,802)
Income Tax (28,832)
SEBI (3,036)
Service Tax (3,423)