Small Industries Development Bank of India Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Bombay High Court) Bombay high court in income tax matter in case of SIDBI vs CBDT … Explaining at length operative impact of non obstante clause A non-obstante clause is generally appended to a Section with a view to give the enacting part […]
Bombay HC’s stern remarks on casual approach by Revenue in Amrutlal V. Rukhana Vs. Rao Ranvijay Singh, CIT. Lack of assistance results in loss of public money.
That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner’s case and after going through the facts of the Petitioner’s case hold and declare that impugned circular no. 125/44/201-GST dated 18.11.2019 in so far as it creates a condition that the refund application has to be filed online only as being wholly beyond the parent provisions (i.e. Section 54, section 16 and section 168(1) of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017) and hence, ultra vires the Act;
Trivedi And Sons Pvt. Limited Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) The petitioner has attached the screenshot showing the invoices uploaded on the portal. Though the petitioner was unable to file TRAN-1 due to technical glitches, yet the petitioner had filed grievances dated 13th April, 2018 and 20th April, 2018 on the portal. Thereafter, […]
It is said that they have issued fake invoices in the name of eight non-existent and fictitious business entities without physical movement of the goods and both being defacto operators have lodged claim of wrongful utilization of bogus ITC on the strength of fake invoices without physical receipt of the goods.
Schlumberger Solutions Private Limited Vs Commissioner Central GST (Punjab and Haryana High Court) Admittedly, the petitioner has deposited amounts of Rs.2,29,61,536/-and further sum of Rs.1,16,51,272/- on account of interest and Rs.34,44,227/- as penalty, even prior to issuance of show cause notice. The question that arises for adjudication is as to whether the petitioner is entitled […]
Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) A bare perusal of the reasons recorded and further clarification of the information made by the revenue by way of affidavit in reply would make it clear that, the company Tuni Textile Ltd., was used in providing bogus accommodation entries of long term capital gain by certain […]
Section 57(iii) of the Act does not require that the expenditure incurred is deductible only if expenditure has resulted in actual income. As long as the purpose of incurring expenditure is to earn income, the expenditure would have to be allowed as a deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Act.
Reopening of the assessment was questioned by the petitioner. The principal reason for reopening was advertisement and marketing expenditure incurred by the petitioner was not deductible in view of section 37, as petitioner was prohibited from advertising under the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
State Tax Officer Vs Y.Balakrishnan (Kerala High Court) (1) The provisions of section 130 of the Act contemplate release of goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation at two stages (i) during the process of adjudication, under section 130(2) and, (ii) post-adjudication under section 130(3) of the Act. (2) At the time of […]
