Dispatch of the appeal by assessee on 02.12.2019 was within the extended period of limitation of one month and, therefore, without considering the prayer for condonation of delay of assessee, respondent No.1 ought not to have rejected the appeal as being time barred by taking the ground that he had no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the extended limitation period of one month.
Inox India Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Conclusion: Since on noticing that the declaration of intent on the shipping bill for claiming the benefit under the reward scheme was made mandatory w.e.f 01.06.2015 under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20 or the Handbook of Procedure, 2015-20, therefore, there could be no exclusion […]
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sunil Kumar Jha and Akshay Chhabra v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (ST) No. 5484 of 2021 & Writ Petition (ST) No. 5486 of 2021, decided on March 11, 2021] granted bail to the accused arrested under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, […]
ABSA Bank Limited Vs Commissioner, South African Revenue Service (High Court of South Africa) FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER of SOUTH AFRICA HIGH COURT Introduction [1] The applicants, Absa Bank Ltd and its wholly owned subsidiary Absa Towers (Pty) Ltd hereafter referred to, collectively, as Absa, seek to review two decisions of the respondent, the […]
The constituent temples function under the aegis of the HR&CE Act and the ‘body’ or ‘authority’ as referred to in Section 10(23BBA) would be the HR&CE department only. Moreover, the proviso to Section 10(23BBA) specifically excludes temples and other religious institutions functioning under the management of the ‘body’ or ‘authority’ from the scope of exemption, stating that they fell within the ambit of taxability.
Admittedly, personal hearing has not been granted to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned orders and it is contrary to the provisions of Section 74(5) of the TNGST Act, which mandates that an opportunity of personal hearing shall be granted in all cases where a specific request is received or where the Officer contemplates adverse decision against the assessee.
Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble High Court was referred an issue ‘mere failure to tick mark the applicable grounds’ in the notice issued under Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) vitiate the entire penalty […]
Dharmesh Gandhi Vs Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion) (Bombay High Court) After hearing the matter at some length, we find that out of the nine bank accounts that have been attached by respondent No.1, only the accounts at Sr. Nos.2, 3 and 4 belong to the petitioner whereas the other accounts belong to the family members, namely, […]
Pearson Drums & Barrels Pvt. Ltd. Vs The General Manager, Consumer Education & Protection Cell of Reserve Bank of India and others (Calcutta High Court) Upon considering the submissions of the parties, it is evident that the petitioner has not only claimed refund of full processing fees from respondent no.4, a private bank, but has […]
Sumit Bhasin Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Delhi High Court) Negotiable Instruments Act, provides sufficient opportunity to a person who issues the cheque. Once a cheque is issued by a person, it must be honored and if it is not honoured, the person is given an opportunity to pay the cheque amount […]
