Giraben Atulbhai Shah Vs ACIT (Gujarat High Court) The objections raised by the assessee came to be disposed of by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 16th November 2021 stating that the assessee sold immovable property for an aggregate value of Rs.52 Lakh and the same was not offered for tax in the return […]
Rajasthan High Court upheld the provisions w.r.t claiming of refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) and asked the department to pass final order after taking into account the reply of the assessee.
Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) The petitioner – assessee is a manufacturer and dealer of consumer goods under provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (‘CST Act’ for short). The returns in Form VAT 100 were filed by the assessee […]
FCI OEN Connectors Limited Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) The limited point that arises for consideration is, whether the respondents were justified in encashing the bank guarantee and invoking the continuity bonds before expiry of the statutory appeal period of 60 days from the date of the order dated 10.03.2021. As rightly contended […]
Rashmi Motors Vs PCIT (Orissa High Court) 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode. 2. It appears that a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has in its judgment dated 30th September, 2021 in Writ Tax No.524 of 2021 (Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India) accepted the pleas challenging reassessment notice […]
Orissa HC quashes notice under Section 148 of IT Act, citing lack of approval and time bar. Full text of judgment included.
Manshi Automobiles Vs Union of India (Patna High Court) We form an opinion that the order is bad in law. This we say so, for two reasons- (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed ex […]
Where a response was sought by the Assessing Officer to the show cause notice, giving less than 24 hours, it has been held to be arbitrary resulting in palpable injustice. Thus, without going into merits or demerits of the case, it would be suffice in restoring the proceedins to the Assessing Officer to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with liberty to file additional reply, annulling the assessment order.
Alice Realties Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith, and the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. There is an Affidavit in Reply dated 31st December 2021 of one Nilesh B Suryawanshi, Resident Executive Engineer of the […]
LNJ Power Ventures Ltd. Vs Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Rajasthan High Court) a) Exercise of jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is no doubt discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. (b) High Courts while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution […]
