Calcutta High Court issues interim order in Apeejay Tea Ltd. petition challenging constitutional validity of Income Tax Section 194N. Stay till September 30, 2021.
Gautam Construction Vs Commissioner of CT and GST (Orissa High Court) The delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due and complying with […]
Vijay Baid Vs Assistant Director (Chhattisgarh High Court) From perusal of Section 135 of the Act, 1962, it is evident that the punishment for committing offence under Section 135 of the Act, 1962, is upto seven years. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the provisions of this Act, would submit that as per Section […]
Briefly, the issue concerns the applicability of the newly inserted provisions of Section 148A and the amendments brought inter alia in Section 149 of the Act. According to the petitioner, the proceedings should conform to the amended provisions.
Tata Communications Transformation Services Limited Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) 1. Mr. Jehangir Mistri, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner vehemently contends that the impugned notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the present matter issued on 21/05/2021 is absolutely untenable on various grounds. He submits several provisions of the Income Tax […]
Assessment or re-assessment made in pursuance to Section 153A of the IT Act, is not a de novo assessment and therefore, it was not open to the Appellant to claim and be allowed deduction or allowance of expenditure which it had not claimed in the original assessment proceedings which in the case of the Appellant stood completed.
The Hon’ble High Court, Madras noted that the summon were issued to the Petitioner instead of the counsel for the Petitioner (in whose name vakalatnama was given). Thus, there is a possibility that the Petitioner would not have informed about the summons to their counsel regarding the personal hearing and the same resulted in passing of the Impugned order without hearing the learned counsel of the Petitioner.
Ganga Devi Somani Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Here, from the facts of the case it appears that Company had voluntarily declared its intention to pay tax and 80% of the tax was paid prior to the complaint. The Income Tax Department was instructed regarding the dues from the GST Department and there […]
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Income Tax Department has clarified the newly introduced provision of Section 194Q of the Act by their communication at Ext.P7 which unequivocally states that buyers are supposed to deduct tax at source within the sale consideration payable to the Oil Companies.
Sudarsanan P. S. Vs CIT (Kerala High Court) The last question that was argued by Adv.Arun Raj related to the claim under Section 69C of the Act for the payment of Rs.3,26,380/-. As mentioned earlier, when satisfactory explanation is not offered by the assessee, the assessing officer is entitled to draw inferences. The expenditure to […]
