Rakesh Kumar Khandelwal Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) Petitioner has placed before the Court various Tax Invoices and e-Way Bills through which purchases have been made by the firm and the record of the Department from which it is revealed that Firms were in existence. As per Rules 25 of the GST Rules, […]
The income tax Appellate Tribunal while hearing an Appeal under Section 254(1) in a matter where registration under Section 12(AA) has been denied by Commissioner income tax can itself pass an order directing commissioner to grant registration in case the income tax Appellate Tribunal disagrees with the satisfaction of the Commissioner on the basis of material already on record before the Commissioner.
Court would like to emphasis that the Law University, being a Public Institution, is bound to implement the provisions of the Right to Information Act, scrupulously in its letter and spirit.
Mere non quoting of the reasons for reopening by AO in the impugned notice would not vitiate the entire proceedings. Department had to furnish the reasons to assessee and on receipt of the reasons, if assessee were of the opinion that there were no additional material or new materials were available then they could submit their objections in respect of the change of opinion or reason to believe.
Pr. CIT Vs Mahalaxmi Infra Projects Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Windmill was erected in the area which required special foundation of reinforced cement concrete and that the said reinforced cement concrete formed integral part of the windmill. Therefore, assessee was eligible for higher rate of depreciation on the civil construction, electric and other installations in […]
In this case despite the fact that the petitioner had complied with the procedure for movement of goods as stipulated under the GST Acts, by the impugned order, the truck with the goods came to be detained/seized under section 129 of the GST Acts on the ground that the transport receipt was a photocopy and the details filled in the transport receipt were handwritten.
The statutory scheme found in Section 434(1)(c) clearly is that the proceedings for winding up pending before the Company Court could be transferred to the NCLT and there is no provision for transfer of proceedings from the NCLT to the Company Court.
Sitaram Roadways Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Observing that principles of natural justice were violated by the adjudicating authority, the Gujarat High Court has set aside the order of confiscation of conveyance and goods, earlier found to be not in possession of mandatory documents. The Court noted that petitioner was not afforded opportunity […]
PCIT Vs Pukhraj S. Jain (Bombay High Court) It is well settled through series of judgements that merely because a debt has not been repaid for over three years, would not automatically imply cessation of liability. Exhaustion of period of limitation may prevent filing of recovery proceedings in a Court of law, nevertheless it cannot […]
Sandeep Patil Vs Union of India and Others (Bombay High Court) The impugned show cause notices allege that the goods imported by the petitioner from outside India into the special warehouse would constitute import of goods under the proviso to section 7(2) of the IGST Act, and thereby, liability of payment of tax under the […]
