Abhay Traders Vs. State of U.P. & Ors (Allahabad High Court) The goods of the petitioner in transportation along with the vehicle was seized under section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on 2-6-2018 for the reason that they were not accompanied by the E-way bill. The submission of learned […]
Religious institutions like temples, churches, mosques, which were not financed/funded by government did not fall within the purview of Right to Information Act, 2005. However, it is desirable to amend the Act at least to bring in its fold all the registered temples/institutions having income over and above a particular limit, to furnish information so as to have a greater vigil with respect to utilization of the monies, conducting affairs transparently and to achieve the objects of the RTI Act.
Suresh Kumar Singhal Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) Provision incorporated in the Constitution Act, 2016 as aforesaid, in no manner, restrict the operation of the provisions of section 174(2) incorporated in CGST Act beyond the period of one year, which provides that repeal of the Acts specified in sub-section (1) of section 174 […]
Explore the Apar Industries vs UOI case on GST refund interest. Petition challenges non-payment of interest on granted refund. High Court directs adjudication. Key details here.
M/s. Vedanta Limited Vs. Union of India (Madras High Court) Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner seeking inter-alia that the conditions S.No. 2(c) of Notification No 79/2017-Customs dated 13th October, 2017 is inter alia arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and quash the same. that paragraph 1 of […]
CIT Vs D. Harindran (Madras High Court) The learned Appellate Tribunal held that the respondent assessee had furnished all details of sale and purchase of the Injambakkam property and had claimed deduction under Section 54/54F of the 1961 Act. After careful perusal and analysis of Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act, the Appellate Tribunal found, […]
Kundan Singh Vs State & others (Uttarakhand High Court) Salary is the property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. No GST or Service Tax can be deducted from the salary of the petitioners without any authority of law. It is reiterated that the Principal Employer is the State Government. The […]
Delhi ITAT has allowed the proportionate allocation of deemed dividend on the basis of the shareholding of the borrowing company. We find this Judgment to be wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case as in the facts of this decision, both the shareholders were holding more than 10% in the lending company and more than 46% in borrowing company.
Pr. CIT Vs M/s TIBCO Software (India) Pvt Ltd (Bombay High Court) Any inclusion or exclusion of comparables per se cannot be treated as a question of law unless it is demonstrated to the Court that the Tribunal or any other lower authority took into account irrelevant consideration or excluded relevant factors in the ALP […]
When a notice under section 263 dealt with several issues, which were not subject-matter of re-assessment proceedings, then, two years period contemplated under section 263(2) would begin to run from date of original assessment and not from date of re-assessment, CIT issued notice under section 263 from date of re-assessment, therefore, the same lacked jurisdiction as it was hit by limitation, thus, the notice was quashed.
