DGGI Vs Abhit Manohar (Patiala House Court) Applicant/accused is Masters in Business Administration. He is reported to be the sole proprietor of M/s Sri Siddhivinayak Ventures and reportedly raised taxable invoices to the tune of Rs.150 crores without any movement of goods. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that input tax credit of […]
Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Gujarat High Court heard petition for extension of due dates in TAR and ITR for A Y 2020-21 on today. Court issued notice and fix next hearing on tomorrow. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER/JUDGEMENT Heard Mr. S. N. Soparkar, learned Senior […]
Punit Garg & Anr Vs Union Bank Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) 1. Issue notice. Mr. O. P. Gaggar, Advocate accepts notice for R-1 and Mr. Shantanu Tyagi, Advocate accepts notice for R-4 and R-5. On steps being taken, notice be issued to the respondent No.3/RBI through all permissible modes including Dasti Service. […]
Telangana High Court held that the action of the respondents in conducting panchanama dt.28.08.2019 and seizing cash of Rs.5.00 crores from Vipul Kumar Patel, employee of the petitioner in W.P.No.23023 of 2019, and retaining it till date, is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also violative of Art.14
S. S. Industries Vs Union of India (Guajrat High Court) I) The invocation of Rule 86A of the Rules for the purpose of blocking the input tax credit may be justified if the concerned authority or any other authority, empowered in law, is of the prima facie opinion based on some cogent materials that the […]
PCIT Vs Headstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) It is now settled law that failure to adhere to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144C of the Act would vitiate the entire proceedings and the same cannot be treated as an irregularity/ curable defect. In ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Companies vs. […]
CTM Technical Textiles Ltd Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Both the goods in question are being manufactured by the writ-applicants by weaving; it being warp knitting in case of the Agro Shade Net and weaving by warp and weft in case of the Geo Grid fabrics. Both these commodities are in the nature […]
Respective officer was directed to dispose of complaints/FIRs filed in respect of economic offences and take appropriate action within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
ITAT has erroneously concluded that the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation under Section 254(2) of the Act inasmuch as the petitioner had filed the miscellaneous application within six months of actual receipt of the order.
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest and salary received by the assessee from firms in which he was a partner cannot be construed as business income u/s. 28(v) and therefore not eligible for applying the presumptive interest rate of 8% under section 44AD of the Act?
