Petitioner has a separate GST registration. If any of DGGI authorities has found it necessary to investigate petitioner based on certain information, said investigation cannot be stopped or interdicted on account of investigation conducted with respect of any other entity.
Held that payment of interest on cash loan falls within the ambit of unexplained expenditure within the meaning of Section 69C of the Income Tax Act.
High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 only against orders passed by Tax Tribunal either under Section 45(2) or 46(3) of H.P. VAT Act.
Dive into the Allahabad High Court’s judgment in Chandra Bhan Vs Union Of India, which rules on the validity of manual notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act without DIN.
Analysis of Jharkhand High Court’s judgment in A.M. Enterprises Vs State of Jharkhand, quashing TDS-related criminal proceedings. Insights into Section 276B and its implications.
Analyzing Delhi High Court’s decision in Dhruv Suri Vs ITO. The court has directed the appellant to file tax return pursuant to Section 148.
Analysis of Tvl. Raja Stores Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) ruling by the Madras High Court. Learn why a GST audit can’t be conducted on a closed business.
Explore the intricacies of ACIT Vs Satish Kumar Keshri, a pivotal case by the Patna High Court about the application of Section 153A in Income Tax assessments. Learn about the court’s stand and its implications.
Jharkhand High Court held that once penalty order is set aside, it will be presumed that there is no concealment and hence prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act will be quashed automatically.
The Honble High Court while allowing the Petition observed that a trademark being deceptively similar would be hit under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademark Act, 1999 which prohibits registration of a mark deceptively similar to a mark which is already on the register in respect of identical or similar goods.
