Allahabad High Court has held that tax liability cannot be fixed on the transporter merely because the assessee/transporter did not furnish the details of the consignor and the consignee of the completed transactions.
Mr. Mahendra Kumar Singhi Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Though several contentions have been raised with reference to initiation of the action under the GST Act and CST Act, since the scope of these petitions is limited only to consider the bail applications, the other points which have been raised are not […]
Where in service sector, the entity has involved itself in various kinds of steps, some of which are preliminary to setting up the main substantial commercial venture such as appointment of key personnel, preparation of draft model development agreement and initiation of process to tender financial and advisory services, then, claim for deduction of depreciation, preliminary expenses and employee’s remuneration was to be allowed.
C.M.S. Info Systems Ltd. Vs Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai East & Ors. (Bombay High Court) We find that the fundamental submission of the petitioner before the AARA was the fact that money would stand covered by the definition of ‘goods’ under Section 2(52) of the GST Act so long as the same is not used as […]
Maulikkumar Vinodkumar Patel Vs TRO (Gujarat High Court) In this case it was held that TRO has powers to order personal summons, Penadancy of recovery proceedings before TRO entitles invoking of Section 131, Requirement of Rule 83 of Schedule II and S. 131 requiring attendance of witness gets fulfilled when assesse appears before TRO. Absence […]
The Court held that Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s claim needs to be adjudicated comprehensively by the same forum. Till the defence is adjudicated, there is no threat to the assets of the Plaintiff and the continuation of the counter claim would not adversely impact its assets.
High Court held that Income Tax Refund cannot be withheld by Income Tax Department for error in Computer System. It held that the computer system cannot override the factual aspects and if Income Tax refund is payable than whether the computer systems accepts or not, is of no consequence.
Section 32(1)(ii) Rights acquired by the assessee under the said agreement not only give enduring benefit, protected the assessee’s business against competence, that too from a person who had closely worked with the assessee in the same business. The expression ‘or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’ used in Explanation 3 to sub-section 32(1)(ii) is wide enough to include the present situation and make Assess eligible to claim depreciation on Non-compete rights.
Jubilant Foodworks Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors (Delhi High Court) As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, one grievance is that although the Petitioners deal in as many as 393 products, and even according to the NAPA they are compliant in regard to the price of many […]
Sabu Johny Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) (a) Section 3(6) of Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 is within the competence of State legislature and Section 3(6) is not in any manner repugnant to Chapter IV of Motor Vehicles’ Act, 1988 or ultra vires Act 1976. Section 3(6) therefore is valid and legal. (b) The registration […]
