High Court states that if the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate re- assessment proceeding, the mere fact that subsequent orders have been passed would not render the challenge to jurisdiction infructuous. If the very basis for re- opening assessment does not survive, orders on such re-opening would not survive too. Hence, considering the matter in its entirety HC are of the view that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by AO cannot be sustained.
Mahavir Enterprise Vs Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax (Gujarat High Court) (Gujarat High Court) Therefore, to sum up, the High Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a show cause notice where the same is issued by an authority in exercise of the power which is absent; the facts does […]
Article on Section 68 with recent development in Case Laws in Bombay High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs Alag Securities Pvt Ltd. vide ITA No. 1512 of 2017 dated June 12, 2020 UNXEPLAINED CASH CREDITS, INVESTMENT, MONEY UNDER PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CASH CREDIT [SECTION 68] define as where any sum is […]
Although relief has primarily been claimed against the schools, the management of not a single school has been impleaded as a respondent by the PIL petitioner. Obviously, granting the prayers of the PIL petition in the absence of the schools would amount to breach of principles of natural justice.
A petition under Section 34 of the Act is only for setting aside an Arbitral Award on the limited grounds provided under Section 34 of the Act. Therefore, the mere pendency of Section 34 proceedings cannot afford a ground for a party to assert that it has a dispute regarding contractual performance.
Hajee A. P. Bava & Company Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court) After 01.04.1989 it is not necessary for the assessee to establish the fact that the debt in fact had become irrecoverable and it is sufficient if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee. In the […]
The issue under consideration is to seeking permission to electronically upload form TRAN-I in order to avail credit of excess VAT reflected in Returns, as due to technical glitches on the GST Portal, the petitioner could not file Form TRAN-I.
State of Kerala Vs Metro Minerals India (P) Ltd. (Kerala High Court) The transfer of property in goods whether as goods or in some other form involved in the execution of a works contract shall be deemed to have taken place in the State, if the goods are within the State at the time of […]
The Respondents are directed to permit Petitioner to upload TRAN-I on or before 30.06.2020 and in case Respondent fails to do so, the Petitioner would be at liberty to avail ITC in question in GSTR-3B of July 2020.
L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Vikram Huilgol for respondent No.2 submits that the appeal under Section 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are to be filed before the appellate authority. As such the petitioner cannot be so hurry and invoke writ remedy […]
