Pr. CIT Vs Shanti Lal Jain (Rajasthan High Court) It is an admitted position that for the purpose of getting immunity from the penalty imposed under Clause 2 of explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, three conditions are required to be satisfied by the assessee. Firstly, if the assessee makes […]
The notification notifying ICDS is contrary to the settled law since its implementation would nullify the judgements of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. This method of overriding the binding decision of Courts by the executive was contrary to law explained in Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Limited v. Broach Borough Municipality (1969) 2 SCC 283.
On 19th September 2017, notice for final disposal at admission stage was issued. Accordingly, today, we have taken up the writ petition for final hearing. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai issued notice dated 18th April 2017 to the petitioner taking recourse to subsection 2 of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
It is a settled principle of law that sanction granted by the higher Authority for issuing of a reopening notice has to be on due application of mind. It cannot be an mechanical approval without examining the proposal sent by the Assessing Officer.
Sales Tax Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) The Apex Court observed that the participation by persons from other specified fields would be a positive consideration for achievement of the object of the said Act of 2005. However, the Apex Court observed that the requirement of a judicial mind for manning […]
Only losses of the years beginning from the initial assessment year are to be brought forward for set-off against profits of the eligible unit. Losses of earlier years which are already set off against income cannot be brought forward notionally for set-off. The fiction in s. 80-IA(5) is created only for a limited purpose and cannot be extended
M/S Atv Projects (India) Ltd Vs. Union Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Under the newly enacted Section 4(b) there are only two classes of persons, namely (i) those persons in whose cases schemes were sanctioned and (ii) those persons in whose cases the schemes were pending. In the former, there are two sub-classes […]
High Court of Delhi held Section 9(2)(g) of Delhi VAT Act to the extent it disallows Input tax credit to purchaser due to default of selling dealer in depositing tax, as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India.
Nishant Export Vs. ACIT (Kerala High Court) The assessee was engaged in the procurement and export of pepper. The assessee procured un-garbled pepper, which by a process got garbled; making it fit for human consumption and was exported. The assessee had been claiming allowance under Section 80HHC for its export turnover as computed under sub-section […]
By these Appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as, the said Act), the assessee is challenging the final order dated 21st July, 2015 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (CESTAT). After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the Appeals raise substantial questions of law.
