RDS Project Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) One is known by the company one keeps. Sh. Tarun Goyal has been established to be engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries. He is the promoter of about 90 companies from the same set of addresses as aforesaid. Amongst the companies promoted by him are […]
The issue under consideration is whether the denial of assessee’s application u/s 264 on the ground that assessee not having filed revised return within prescribed time is justified in law?
Since the prescribed electronic return of income did not permit assessee to make his claim to set off of his profits of this year from the carried forward losses of the previous year, therefore, assessee was directed to make a representation on the above issue to the CBDT and in the meantime, assessee without prejudice to his rights and contentions would file the return of income in electronic form on the system before the last date.
Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) We are prima facie of the view that the Revenue Authorities committed serious error. Against the total demand arising out of the order of assessment of Rs. 205 crore, the Assessing Officer has already recovered a total of Rs. 140 crores by now through different means. […]
M3M India Holdings Pvt. Ltd Vs ITSC (P&H High Court) For purposes of making an application for settlement, a case i.e. an assessment would be pending till such time as the assessment order is served upon the assessee. The assessee is entitled to proceed on the basis that till the service of the assessment order, […]
HC held that The Notification impugned dated 1.10.2013 issued by the Government of Karnataka insofar it relates to the amendment made to the Notification dated 30.3.2002 for insertion of sub-item [ii] in Serial No.[5], specifying unmanufactured tobacco in ‘sealed container’ for levy of Entry Tax at 5% with effect from 02.10.2013 cannot be held to be unjustifiable and is accordingly upheld.
He has also made a suggestion that instead of constituting a separate tribunal to deal with GST matters, the CESTAT could be empowered to deal with the same since several cases involve issues relating to customs duties and GST as well.
P.X. Xavier Vs. K. Joseph (Kerala High Court) Admittedly, the Liquidator had taken a decision. The decision taken by the liquidator is appealable under Section 42 of the Code. The petitioners, in order to file appeal under Section 42 of the Code, filed an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It has […]
Insha Trading Company Vs. State Of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The reasons for issuance of the notice for confiscation under section 130 of the CGST Act in Form GST MOV-10 are that upon preliminary verification of the dealer online, 42 e-way bills have been generated in December 2018, wherein, IGST has been shown to Rs. […]
M/s Livguard Energy Technologies (P) Ltd Vs State of Uttarakhand (Uttarakhand High Court) Uttarakhand High Court has declined to accede to petitioner’s request for release of vehicle and goods seized on merely furnishing an indemnity bond. It observed that it would be inappropriate to issue a direction contrary to provisions of Section 129 of the […]
