Delhi High Court has observed that second proviso to Customs Section 110(2), stating that in case of provisional release, period of 6 months for SCN would not apply, is to make sure that at least seized goods are provisionally released quickly. The Court held that 2nd proviso, inserted by Finance Act, 2018, did not take away what was already available to assessee and hence the proviso was not applied retrospectively.
When the commission paid to the non-resident agents was neither received or deemed to be received in India nor accrued or was deemed to accrue in India, no income was chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. When the payment made by assessee to the overseas agent for services rendered abroad was not income chargeable to tax in India, there was no obligation cast upon assessee to deduct tax at source under section 195 and consequently, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) would not be attracted.
Dharmraj Prasad Bibhuti Vs ITAT, Patna (Patna High Court) Section 132 (4A) of the I.T. Act provides that where any books of Accounts, other documents, money etc. is found in possession or control of any person in course of search, it may be presumed that the same belongs to such person. It is apparent from […]
Gujarat High Court has reiterated that the power to arrest under Section 69 of the Central GST Act is to be exercised with lot of care and circumspection and that prosecution should normally be launched only after completion of adjudication. The Court directed that no coercive steps of arrest against the writ petitioner should be taken.
Ms Anusura Vs Mohit A Gupta (Gujarat High Court) Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that the action on the part of the concerned authorities could be termed as absolutely high-handed and arbitrary. The facts of this case speak for themselves. […]
Raghava Constructions Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the proceedings of letter C.No. V/04/06/2019-Arrears, dated 31.07.2019, issued by 2nd respondent, pending disposal of WP.No.16885 of […]
Notice notice under section 148 being jurisdictional notice, issued to a dead person and legal representative not having waived the requirement of notice under section 148 and not having submitted to the jurisdiction of AO pursuant to impugned notice, provisions of section 292B would not get attracted and hence, notice under section 148 had to be treated as invalid.
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) Allahabad High Court has held that there is no specification under Excise Rule 18 that for the purpose of rebate, goods need to be manufactured inside country. The Court held that the rule talks about any goods, which includes both manufactured inside the […]
Fresh information in the form of investigation report clearly demonstrated that initial disclosure regarding price of shares was not true and there was whole ‘live link’ between material in the form of investigation report and formation of belief that income had escaped assessment, therefore, reassessment notice was sustained as valid.
Ram Charitra Ram Harihar Prasad Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court) In so far as the present case is concerned, the document at Annexure -A series would confirm that the goods were tax paid and thus the exercise had to be regulated under the provisions of Section 129(1 )(b) which provides for a lenient […]
