High Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) 1. Although the situation in the State of Maharashtra because of the pandemic has improved over the last few days, access to the courts of law is yet not free. To ensure that persons suffering orders of dispossession, demolition, eviction, etc., passed […]
Sanjiv Kumar Mittal Vs Deputy Commissioner (TRC), CGST Commissionerate Delhi South & Ors. (Delhi High Court) SECTION 87(b)(i) OF THE FINANCE ACT PROVIDES FOR A GARNISHEE ORDER ONLY – i.e. PROVIDES FOR ATTACHMENT OF FUNDS OF AN ASSESSEE LYING WITH THIRD PARTIES. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE FINANCE ACT MAKING AN EX-DIRECTOR, EVEN IF […]
CIT Vs Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) Here, on facts, the Tribunal noted that the AO only discussed the provisions of section 14A(l) but has not justified how the expenditure the Assessee incurred during the relevant year related to the income not forming part of its total income. The AO, according […]
CIT Vs Vijaya Bank (Karnataka High Court) Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that prior to amendment with effect from 01.04.2008, benefit of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act was not available to a Banking Company and therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. It is further submitted […]
Where assessee did not produce any material, despite opportunity being afforded to show that the amount seized during the search, did not belong to it but belonged to some other person as claimed by it; the addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of cash seized during the search would be sustainable.
HC held that the show cause notice under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) cannot be issued on a mere suspicion. There has to be some prima facie material on the basis of which the authority may arrive at the satisfaction that the goods are liable to be confiscated under Section 130 of the CGST Act.
The issue under consideration is whether ‘Noticing the conveyance at a wrong destination’ without anything more can be said to be a contravention of the CGST Act?
Gokul P.G. Vs State of Kerala (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam) Sections 129 and 130 are independent provisions, and that, while a detention of goods and vehicle under Section 129 could entail proceedings under Section 130, in situations where the detained goods/vehicle are not cleared by the owners thereof within a period of 14 […]
Principal Director, Income Tax Vs Rajiv Yaduvanshi (Delhi High Court) Moreover, in cases pertaining to Tax evasion petitions like the present case, this Court also exercises its powers sparingly and it is a well-settled principle that only the broad outcome of the Tax evasion petition may be communicated to the complainant, that too upon culmination […]
SB Traders Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) It was pointed out that three months back, an application was fled under Section 67(6) of the Act for provisional release of the goods and the conveyance. However, according to the learned counsel, no orders have been passed on such application. We dispose of this writ […]
