Ingenico International India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) A plain reading of Section 241A shows that the mere issuance of the scrutiny notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act cannot stall the remittance of refund to the assessee. The refund can only be stalled if the conditions stipulated in Section 241A of […]
If, in the interregnum, investigation is necessitated, in line with the circular dated 05.10.2018, it shall be carried out only by the Gautam Budh Nagar Commissionerate. The search officers will ensure that there is no invasion of privacy.
Jai Maa Jwalamukhi Iron Scrap Supplier Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) 1. When the respondents have not denied the issuance of the invoice and the e-way bills uploaded against subject transactions it has to be assumed that the invoice and the e-way bills had been issued. 2. Once the respondent admits that the […]
K. Basheer Vs C.K. Usman Koya (High Court Kerala) It is also to be noted in this context that the offence u/s.138 of the Act is an offence which would be attracted on the ingredients above referred being satisfied. The statute also provides a presumption in favour of the holder which cannot be rendered otiose. […]
Navneet R. Jhanwar Vs State Tax Officer and others (Jammu and Kashmir High Court) Admittedly, the claim for refund was initially sought to be rejected by respondent No.1 on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Section 54 of the Act provides a period of two years for making an application for refund from […]
As per the own case of the petitioner as set out in paragraph 19 of the writ petition there is practice of wearing Khakhi Uniform by the officers of different wings of the department which was started sometime in the year 1938. However, there is no uniformity in these uniforms. As such, it cannot be said that the insistence of wearing Uniform by the members of the petitioner’s association has been introduced recently in the department, without there being any order or direction.
Bombay High Court ruling on joint land purchase, capital gains. Amjad Ahmedbhai Sheikh Vs ACIT case details. Read the full judgment.
Kaamdaa Impex Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) Refund not deniable for delay in filing when vital documents seized by DRI: The Madras High Court has held that the application for refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) cannot be rejected based on the limitation period as prescribed under the relevant notification when the vital […]
Where the transaction itself, on the basis of the subsequent information, was found to be bogus transaction, the mere disclosure of that transaction at the time of original assessment proceedings could not be said to be disclosure of the ‘true’ and ‘full’ facts in the case and the Income Tax Officer would have the jurisdiction to re-open the concluded assessment in such a case.
Southern Ferro Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) In respect of electricity supplied to the consumers by a non-licensee through a licensee, the electricity tax payable is on the units of the electricity supplied. Obviously, the unit of electricity supplied is the indicator of the quantum of electricity consumed and since the electricity […]
