Auroglobal Comtrade Private Limited Vs Chairman, CBDT & Others (Orissa High Court) HC declined to accept challenge to the Reopening notices under Section 148-A(1)(b) of the Act as well as the consequential order under Section 148-A(1)(d) of the Act by holding that the Petitioners/Assessees in those cases would have a full opportunity of urging all […]
Punjab and Haryana HC rejects interference at early stage in Anshul Jain Vs PCIT case. The court holds that objections can be raised in re-assessment proceedings.
Graziano Transmission India Private Limited Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that an opportunity of hearing is to be provided where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. The […]
HC held that Tribunal, therefore, correctly restricted the additions limited to the extent of bringing G.P. rate on bogus purchases at the same rate of other genuine purchases.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that Conciliation Officer is not an Industrial Tribunal or a Labour Court and does not exercise judicial/quasi-judicial functions and/or does not adjudicate the claims of /disputes between the parties.
Interim relief in terms of deposit of fine in lieu of confiscation of vehicle being Rs. 2,50,062/- with penalty of Rs. 5,00,124/- under Section 129(1a) which included 200% of the tax amount and bond value against the release of the goods to the tune of Rs. 13,89,224/- as per GST MOV-10 should be furnished by assessee for release of the goods detained/ seized under that Section and no coercive steps or further order under Section 130 should be passed
Madras High Court held that as taxes are the main source of income for the Government to concentrate on the welfare of the people companies/firms/entities which evade payment of tax are liable to be punished under criminal charges with substantial penalties.
Calcutta HC order in on how an order should not be drafted where Tribunal adopted finding of CIT(A) verbatim as its own findings
Bombay High Court held that the clause contained in the invoices which clearly stipulate a reference to arbitration, deserve to be construed as an arbitration clause as parties duly acted upon the invoice. Accordingly, clause squarely fall within the ambit of Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 127H of the Act of 1962 confers power on the Settlement Commission to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty. Section 127H(1) as it read prior to 1 June 2007 empowered the Settlement Commission, upon satisfaction of the conditions laid down in the provisions, to grant immunity either wholly or in part from the imposition of any penalty, fine and interest.
