HC held that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act cannot be called upon to reexamine the facts or to re-appreciate the tenor and ambit of the document which was placed before the Assessing Officer, CITA and more importantly the Tribunal has noted that the assessee has failed to establish the reimbursement which was pleaded by producing document despite opportunity being given at the appellate stage.
Calcutta High Court quashes IT notice against Tinplate Company, citing change of opinion in assessing officer approach. Detailed analysis and implications.
Explore the ACIT Vs Zodiac Transport case as ITAT Delhi directs fresh adjudication on protective additions, influenced by the SVP Group entities recent partial relief.
Meghalaya High Court orders the setting aside of a Section 148 notice due to procedural lapses, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to the mandated seven-day response period.
The assessee gave additional discount to parties on account of godown rent paid by the said parties. According to the assessee, the customers did not take the delivery of the goods in their own godown after the purchase and the goods would continue to be at the godown of the assessee till the customer sells the goods to the other parties.
HC held that, orders denying refund claim to the assessee for accumulated credit of Compensation Cess, where the reason of claim being time barred is absent but certain other reasons have been assigned that are sufficient to enable the assessee to know the cause for rejection of the claim for refund cannot be categorized to be non-speaking. Further, relegated the matter for avail the alternate remedy of appeal
Bail granted on the basis that there is no substantial allegation that the accused failed to comply with any such notices during the period of investigation. No material has been placed on record to establish any change of circumstances on the basis of which their arrest could have been considered
Held that this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot entertain or adjudicate upon such issues based on additional facts not advanced earlier. Writ petition not entertained on the ground of the petitioner has not availed of alternative efficacious remedy available under section 26 of the MVAT Act.
It was incumbent on the part of the petitioners to have made proper declaration under Customs Baggage Declaration Regulations, 2013 read with Baggage Rules 2016. These Rules apply to all passengers including tourist coming to India.
HC held that under the Customs Act, 1962, there are different Power Centres for appointing persons as Officers of Customs for discharging their powers and functions (duties) imposed under the Act. The contours of powers to be exercised by such Officers of Customs is to be drawn by the Board.
