Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated by mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer regarding the question of the fair market value or whether the amount paid by the assessee to his sisters was deductible from the total consideration.
Mahalaxmi Dye India Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) A perusal of the paper book reveals that during the investigation it has been found that M/s Seema Enterprises is not involved in any real business and hence the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it made payments in the course of […]
HC held that Registration once issued to assessee and later cancelled upon request can’t be revoked merely on the basis of disputes with brother of applicant, over undivided property.
Orissa High Court held that Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (3-A) of Section 7 of the P.G. Act, 1972, vide Notification dated 01.10.1987, notified that simple interest @10% is payable for the time gratuity is not paid within the specified period.
The argument addressed by the learned HCGP that the google search discloses that the petitioner has cheated number of persons which is evident from the review cannot be accepted as it does not have any legal evidentiary value.
Telengana High Court held that statute has introduced limitation under section 39(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to rectify omission/ error in GSTR-1 return and accordingly assessee cannot be permitted to carry out rectification beyond the statutorily prescribed period.
Madras High Court held that order directing forfeiture of property u/s. 7 of the Competent Authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 is unsustainable as link or the nexus between the income of the detenue and the acquisition of the property is not established.
CIT Vs Hazira LNG Pvt Ltd (Gujarat High Court) CIT(A) recorded a finding that earning of the assessee from foreign exchange fluctuations was not in connection with its business activity. The finding was in the realm of appreciation of facts and material, therefore, is factual in nature. Such a finding came to be affirmed by […]
Jammu Kashmir High Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of additional toll chargeable on capital goods imported by it for undertaking substantial expansion of its unit in the year 2006 as the benefit for the time was made available in the year 2008.
Delhi High Court held that attachment under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) does not result in the effacement of rights in property, it would clearly stand and survive outside the scope of a moratorium that comes into effect in terms of section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2006.
