No notice whatsoever was issued to the legal representative/s of the assessee before undertaking the reassessment proceedings. Thus, the impugned re-assessment and the assessment order having been passed against the dead assessee, is invalid and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mohit Raghuram Hegde Proprietor Creative Infotech (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that mere valid arbitration clause exist in “terms and conditions” as mentioned in the website and mere allegation of fraud would not vitiate the constitution of arbitral […]
Assessee as an EOU was entitled to claim deemed export drawback on raw materials/inputs which remained unutilized with the then-existing DTA unit at the time of its conversion into a 100% EOU.
Held that there is no dispute that the work order was issued by the respondent but stamp duty on the same is not paid. Accordingly, arbitration clause would be non-existent in law and unenforceable till stamp duty is adjudicated and paid.
Held that allegation of collusion between the arbitrator and the opposite party cannot be decided in an application filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Held that duty demand unsustainable in absence of any evidence that job work charges paid by the company to the job workers flowed back to them and in absence of any evidence that that the Company is involved in clandestine removal of goods
Held that goods can be released provisionally under Section 110A of the Act, only in favour of an owner. Provisional release of goods is not possible if the ownership of the goods in question is not proved.
Bombay HC set aside the assessment orders under the Maharashtra VAT Act whereby a Developer was assessed as un-registered dealer for the periods from 2011-12 onwards
Bail granted to one of the co-accused, can be a strong ground for another co-accused to also be enlarged on bail. Ashish Rajput Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court)
PCIT-4 Vs Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd (Calcutta High Court) Whether the interest subsidy and excise refund would be treated as capital receipt or revenue receipt for the purpose of computation of book profit under the provision of Section 115JB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ? Identical issue was also considered by this Court in […]
