Piramal Enterprises Limited Vs Additional/joint/Deputy/Assistant CIT/ITO National e-Assessment Centre (Bombay High Court) The HC declared that assessment for AY 2017-18 made u/s 143(3) vide order dated 22.4.2021 was non est u/s 144B(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for not adhering the procedure laid down u/s 144B(1) and u/s 144B(7/(vii) of the Act and holding […]
CIT Vs L & T Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. (Madras High Court) It is well-settled that there cannot be two owners of the property simultaneously and int he same sense of the term. The intention of the Legislature in enacting Section 32 of the Act would be best fulfilled by allowing deduction in respect of depreciation […]
National Enterprises Vs Union of India (Patna High Court) Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record made available, we are of the considered view that this Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, we form an opinion that the order is bad in law. […]
Delhi HC imposes cost on Audit-I & GST EAST for non-appearance. Anand and Anand vs Union of India. Latest legal updates by Anand Bhattacharya
Aich Brothers Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court) The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of M/s. Aich Brothers v. the Union of India [WP(C)/3222/2021, dated July 13, 2021] directed the assessee to approach the Revenue Department with an application to pay the outstanding dues against the interest liability for delayed filing of […]
Rejected anticipatory bail application due to severity of allegations and conduct of assessee In Directorate General of CGST Intelligence (Delhi East Unit) v. Saurav Gupta [Bail Application No. 1423/21 decided on July 28, 2021] Saurav Gupta (Respondent), 90% shareholder of M/s Saurav Beverages Private Limited (Company) filed anticipatory bail application. The Department submitted that during […]
Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios, S.A. Vs Commissioner of Sales Tax (Orissa High Court) M/s Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios (Petitioner) challenged an assessment order dated May 15, 2013 (Assessment Order) passed under Section 42 of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (OVAT Act) for being passed beyond the period of limitation i.e. after lapse of […]
V.S. Enterprises Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Undisputedly, three periods for which the orders had been passed are overlapping. Notice dated 22.12.2020 was issued by respondent no.2 for the period July 2017 to March 2018. It covers the entire period and dispute being sought to be adjudicated in the other two notices as […]
Expenditure made by assessee towards purchase of equipment, such as wheel balancer/wheel aligner/wheel changer/tyre changer, was capital expenditure but not revenue expenditure as assessee had installed equipment’s, which could be removed and also could be taken back and reused in some other place and assessee would continue to be the owner of these equipments, though they were installed in the premises of the dealers.
The Petitioner contended that the amendment was effected by way of rectification of an anomaly and therefore, it cannot be construed as a new policy. Thus, the benefit of ITC granted pursuant to the amendment is to be extended so as to cover the transactions took place prior to the insertion of the amendment.
