Sunita Shekhawat Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner Sunita Shekhawat Director M/s Siyaram Exports India Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with case No. 56/2016 for the offence(s) under Sections 276CC Income Tax Act pending […]
While analyzing Section 28A(4) of the Customs Act, the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd., has held that the provision must be construed as conferring the power of such review on the same officer or his successor who has been assigned the function of assessment. An officer who did the assessment could only undertake reassessment and after extensive analysis, the Court held that the entire proceeding initiated by the Additional Director, General of DRI by issuing show cause notices in all the matters are invalid, without any authority of law and liable to be set aside and accordingly, ensuing demands also have been set aside.
Gujarat HC decision on Surat MC’s claim on property tax arrears after liquidation. Section 141 of GPMC Act examined. Legal analysis and implications here.
Suppression of material facts, intentional suggestion of falsehood and non-application of mind goes to show that, this is a malicious prosecution initiated by the Income Tax authorities by abusing the power. When the malafide is patently manifested, the petitioners need not be forced to undergo the ordeal of trial, which has no legs to stand.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court) High Court is of the view that it is highly unlikely that the petitioner i.e. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) would be engaged in input tax credit fraud as alleged by the Respondents. Accordingly, till further orders, no action shall be taken in pursuance to the impugned […]
Raja Ram Dalmia Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court) HC held that Without going into these disputed facts that whether claim was lodged before the Official Liquidator, admitted position today which exists on the basis of report of the Official Liquidator is that even if the respondent Income Tax Authority wants to recover the demand from […]
Ramesh Arora (Earlier Known As Ramesh Kumar) Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the parties admit that as the impugned notices in the present matters have been issued post 31st March, 2021 without following the procedure prescribed in the substituted Sections 147 to 151 w.e.f. 01st April, 2021, the present matters are covered […]
Unisource Hydro Carbon Services Private Limited & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) The Hon’ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, passed judgement on 22.04.2022 and 02.05.2022 and allowed the Writ petition and set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge passed by the Hon’ble Justice Nizamuddin […]
Reopening of assessment u/s. 147 and issuance of notices u/s. 148 admittedly after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year on the selfsame material facts which were already available before the assessing officer at the time of regular assessment and without recording of any omission or failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly any material fact necessary for assessment before the assessing officer in course of regular assessment proceeding.
Assessee who is deprived of refund of their amount in view of wrongful withholding of their amount by the authority cannot be refused to compensate for such wrongful deprivation of their amount lying with the authority for no fault of the assessees. We are inclined to allow the claim for the interest by way of compensation/damages at the rate of 6% p.a. for delayed period.
