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 […]
Where a director was disqualified under section 164(2) of the Companies Act 2013 for not filing Financial Statements and Annual Returns continuously for a period of three years, then, the disqualification was incurred and no interim relief was to be granted for the same as these were ministerial or administrative act of filing which was to be performed by the Company.
The prosecution of an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888, is not hit by the bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
Skipper Limited Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) The provision shows that upon seizure of goods and conveyances in transit, the Revenue shall issue a notice specifying the tax and penalty liable to be paid by the assessee and pass an order for payment and tax and penalty in the manner provided under Clause […]
Explore Ankit Bhutani vs. Union of India case. The writ petitioner seeks relief in the tax inquiry against summonses, but the court dismisses the petition due to non-cooperation.
Perfect Turners Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) In this case on the issue of Interest Payment under Section 50 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 that whether it should be on Gross GST Liability or on Net GST Liability in the case of delayed Submission of form GSTR-3B, High Court has […]
In the given case, the writ applicant claims to be an agriculturist. It is his case that he owns a godown bearing No.14, situated at the Marketing Yard at Gondal, District: Rajkot.
In the present case, prosecution case is that the petitioner and his co-accused by creating fake firms, have issued invoices involving tax amount of more than Rupees Seventy Four Crores. The firms were misused for evading GST input taxes by the accused. Fake firms had been created in different States of the country. Although, co-accused Himani Munjal has been granted bail by the Apex Court, but it appears that she has been granted bail on account of the fact that she is a lady and has a young child to lookafter. Her custody period was also taken into consideration. Thus, the case of the petitioner can be said to be on different footing.
