Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the law does not compel a man to do things which he cannot possibly perform and it was held that Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017, deals with a procedure for claiming refund, but requiring them to produce shipping bills, as proof of export cannot be made applicable to electricity, as it is impossible to produce shipping bill for export of electricity, since the Custom Law does not refer to electricity and shipping bill is a Customs document.
High COurt held that Registering Authority is bound to refuse to register an instrument for transfer of immovable property the ‘alienation or transfer of which is prohibited at any State and Central Act’. With the RERA Act mandating that the transfer of common areas should only be effected in favour of an Association of Apartment Owners
Vikas Jain Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) In view of the report of DDIT (Inv.) Unit-7(1) and 7(3) Mumbai, shared with the AO which suggests that the LTCG earned by the petitioner in AY 2014-15 was bogus and since, the said LTCG was claimed as exempt income, the AO at this stage, concluded that the […]
Madras High Court held that as the Appellate Tribunal is the ultimate fact finding authority, it is incumbent on the part of the Appellate Tribunal to examine the claim on the basis of additional documents/ evidences. Accordingly, matter remanded back to Appellate Tribunal to re-examine the issue.
Gujarat High Court held that the expression or word sufficient cause’ occurring in section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, cannot be construed in a static form. Delay in filing of an appeal on account of rectification application and Lockdown duly condoned.
AGL Logistics Private Limited Vs CIT (Delhi High Court) In this case Assessing Officer failed to dispose of stay application dated 10th September, 2021 filed by the Petitioner within four weeks from its filing, as directed by Delhi High Court vide order dated 2nd September, 2021. Assessing Officer states that he could not comply with […]
The act on the part of the respondents of keeping the impugned show cause notices in call book for unduly long period, without disclosing any reason for delay is arbitrary in exercise of powers and is also in violation of provisions of Section 11A of the Customs Act. It would in our opinion vitiate the entire proceedings.
HC held that amendment of Section 14A, which is for removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be retrospective even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood.
Himadri Kandarp Mehta L/H of Late Kandarp Yashashvibhai Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) Law is well settled that unless the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased assessee could be said to have been submitted to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer and have participated in the assessment or re-assessment proceedings, notice to the dead […]
Proper officer cannot proceed to issue DRC-01/01A on matters never intimated to taxpayer in form ASMT 10 pursuant to scrutiny of returns
