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.
Sri Nanjundaiah Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Sri Nanjundaiah (Petitioner), the founder of Kanva Souhardha Co-operative Credit Limited (Society) has filed the Bail Application in Special Criminal Case No.846/2020 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (Respondent) for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act). […]
East India InfoTech Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court) Considering the prime defence of the petitioner that he is not a registered dealer nor is he dealing in purchase and sale of vehicles and the ambulances have been purchased by the petitioner only for its own use and purpose since the petitioner […]
Federation of Indian Small Scale Battery Associations (Regd.) and Anr. Vs Union of India and ORS. (Delhi High Court) Here the main question to answer by the court is whether it can be permitted to deny ITC to recipient for the fault of supplier? Via this petition, challenge has been laid to the constitutional vires […]
Tripura Cricket Association Vs ACIT (Calcutta High Court) The case of the petitioner in short is that the petitioner is the governing body for cricket of the Tripura State and it is affiliated to the Board of Control of India (BCCI) and it is the case of the petitioner that it was enjoying exemption under […]
Mohammad Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. & Another (Allahabad high court) Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri A.Z.Khan, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Yatindra Kumar Agnihotri, learned Additional Government Advocate for State. The instant application has been moved by the applicant Mohammad Ahmad Khan with a prayer […]
In fact, there is a column available for reasons on the basis of which the claim has been either accepted or rejected. However, this column in the impugned order is conspicuously blank and no reasons have been adduced for the rejection of the request. Bearing in mind the violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order of rejection is set aside.
The Hon’ble High Court, Delhi directed that proceedings pursuant to the SCN and Impugned summons shall continue but the final orders shall not be given effect to till disposal of the writ petition. Listed the case on August 9, 2020 for next hearing.
Further, stated that illusionary pre-show cause consultation notice is not only arbitrary, but is in utter disregard and in contravention of the very object and purpose of the above Master Circular.
