Where the books of accounts maintained by contractors were not accepted by the Department, the estimation of profit made on the basis of history of Gross Profit rate and Net Profit rate of assessee in the previous years or comparable cases of contractors could be made. Once such profit rates were compared, the additions on account of non confirmation or non production of the sub contractors, etc. was totally irrelevant and could not be made.
Namaskar Enterprise Vs Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax (Gujarat High Court) A perusal of the aforesaid Sub-Section-2 of Section 83 makes it abundantly clear that the provisional attachment would cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under Sub-Section-1. Although no specific […]
The Madras High Court issued the notice to the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of GST for various issues related to Input Tax Credit, its transitional provisions and concern time limit.
Since assessee-contractor carried out work for laying down road in a thermal power plant, therefore, there was no question of not incurring of expenditure by assessee to carry on road work contracts but the disallowance of whole expenditure towards sub contract work by AO for want of proper bills was not justified instead disallowance of 10% of expenses made by appellate authorities was justified.
C. Prasannakumaran Unnithan Vs GST Council (Kerala High Court) The controversy in the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petitions arose on the Goods and Services Tax regime coming into effect from 01.07.2017. The dealers who were covered under the earlier regime were required to upload FORM GST TRAN 1 within the time stipulated, to avail […]
The issue under consideration is whether the order passed for imposing tax and penalty equal to 100% on areca nut for the release of detained goods and conveyances in transit is justified in law?
whether application filed under the SVLDR Scheme rejected on the sole ground that the demand was neither quantified without giving opportunity of being heard is justified in law?
Passing a landmark judgment on 9 Aug 2020, the Kerala High Court has issued a judgment explaining the process mechanism as stated under section 57 of the TP Act 1882 relating to removing encumbrances created on immovable property. The judgment is exemplary because there was no prior case or precedent established in such cases in such matters and it gives an emphasis on the efficacious and substantive mechanism as provided under section 57 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882.
Sundeep Mahendrakumar Sanghavi Vs. Union of India (Gujarat High Court) (1) Any person can be arrested for any offence under the Customs Act, 1962, by the Customs Officer, if such officer has reasons to believe that such person has committed an offence punishable under Section 132 or Section 133 or Section 135 or Section 135A […]
Vijay Goverdhandas Kalantri & Another Vs Union of India & Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the filing of the petition without jurisdiction only to gain benefit of its interim order is sustainable in law? In the present case, admittedly, both the petitioners are residents of Mumbai and the […]
