Pr. CIT Vs Pat Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Bogus loss from Client Code Modification (CCM):However, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s explanation and discarded the Revenue’s theory that profit of the assessee’s company were passed on to the clients. It was also noticed that the Revenue has not contended that the client code […]
Since during the period the property was legally not occupiable and not occupied because the building in which property was situated was not given Occupancy Certificate (OC), therefore, issue for charging of tax on notional rental basis and the question of interpretation of section 23(1)(a) did not arise at all.
Unitac Energy Solution Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ass. STO (Kerala High Court) Kerala High Court has held that detention claiming the consignee was a return defaulter for the last five months, is not a valid ground to justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act 2017. The High Court quashed the detention notice observing that […]
Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The main contention of the Petitioner is of violation of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner contends that since the hearing was only by three members and the impugned order is by four members, it is in breach of principles of natural justice. The […]
Services provided by the payment gateway is such that the charges collected by it has to be necessarily treated as fees and not as a commission. The payment in fact is made by one principal to another and it is only being facilitated by the payment gateway by providing a service.
Shri Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain Vs DCIT (Exemptions) (Madras High Court) The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 02.04.2009, which was processed and intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 21.01.2011. Thus, there was no assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee, while filing […]
Vodafone Idea Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) 1. The petitioner has prayed for directions to the Income Tax Authorities for releasing the refund of Rs. 43.25 Crores (rounded off) with applicable interest pertaining to the assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-2014. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on […]
D. K. Shivakumar Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi High Court) While dealing with the bail application, it is not in dispute that three factors have to be seen viz. i) flight risk, ii) tampering evidence iii) influencing witnesses. Regarding the flight risk, neither argued by learned Additional Solicitor General nor placed any material on record, […]
Section 67(2) of the Act empowers the authorised officer to search and seize the goods, documents or books or things – however, s.67(2) does not empower the officer concerned to record statements of family members through force or coercion or to record their conversations in their mobile phones.
Limitation period for issuance of scrutiny notice under section 143(2) on filing of defective returns was to be considered from the date of filing of the original return as upon removing of defects, the return would relate back to the date of filing of the original return thus, the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the period of limitation and could not be sustained.
