The question before us is, whether the receipts derived from leasing out of the cinema hall, along with furniture & fixtures, plant & machineries and other amenities, was ‘business income’ as contended by the assessee or ‘income from other sources’ as treated by the Department.
उrievance of the writ-applicant is that -authorities are not responding to request with regard to the sanction of refund of IGST paid in connection with the goods exported,
Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Vs BSNL (Guwahati High Court) Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 confers jurisdiction upon the Appellate Tribunal to pass such orders which are indicated therein, including orders confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against. However, Section 35C of the Act of 1944, does not confer […]
Lakshmi Satyanarayana Dutt Tadikonda Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) In the given case, the petitioner is seeking the withdrawal of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him and no other prayer has been pressed during the course of the arguments by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner […]
The issue under consideration is whether the Public notice issued by DGFT for restricting the issuance of Advance Authorisation is justified in law?
ABB India Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The whole basis of issuing Form GST-MOV-10 appears to be erroneous in law. The authority has thought fit to proceed against the applicant by way of Form GST-MOV-10, on the premise of section 129(6) of the Act, 2017. Section 129(6) of the Act, 2017 reads […]
Contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that the Act vests the power in the respondents to take measures for recovery of tax, interest & the penalties that have fallen due does not come to the rescue of the Revenue; existence of power is one thing and its exercise is another; the existence per se does not justify the exercise; no case is made out for excluding an opportunity of hearing to the Assessee before making the impugned order.
The amount retained by the bank for the fees charged for having rendered banking services, cannot be treated as a commission or a brokerage paid in course of use of banking service by a person acting on behalf of another for buying or selling goods, so as to be hit by section 194H.
PCIT Vs Adani Agro (P.) Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by AO under Section 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liability is justified in law? High Court states that, once assessee had continued to show admitted amounts as liabilities in its balance sheet, the […]
Larsen And Toubro Limited Vs The Commissioner (Kerala High Court) The high court was of the view that the controversy involved assailing the impugned notices could not be adjudicated at this stage of the matter, particularly when the petitioner had already submitted a reply backed by relevant provisions and circulars which is required to be […]
