Surendra Kumar Jain Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court) The general provision of two years, in the opinion of the Court, has been provided with one important objective i.e. to cater to a specific situation where upon search and seizure operation, if new material is found, already completed assessments are revisited. Had Parliament not prescribed such a […]
Needless to clarify that in the absence of a clear policy, the Courts may then impose interest on the quantum of refund generated either by virtue of Court orders or by virtue of substantive proceedings arising out of refund applications. Either-way, it is the Revenue who would have to pay interest on the delayed refund and as such rates determined by the Court.
Col. J.P.S. Yadav Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited (High Court Chhatisgarh) Consequently, evaluating the facts, the finding that the notices were sent under the camouflage cover of SECL concealing the name of the sole arbitrator on 20.9.1993 and 28.10.1993 would be important. Further, the Court held that no service was affected to J.P.S. Yadav, the Managing Director and the […]
Imarti Lakdi Vyapari Sansthan, Jodhpur Vs State Of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur) Rajasthan High Court has held that the levy under section 17 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Act, 1961 is a ‘ Fee ’ and not a cess and therefore, the same is not abolished after the rollout of GST. The […]
Bhupendra Murji Shah Vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) We are not concerned here with the Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. We are not concerned here also with the power conferred in the Assessing Officer of collection and recovery by coercive means. All that we are worried about is the understanding of this […]
Incorrectly mentioning the number of tax invoices as tax invoice number on E-way Bill- Prima facie, there seems no discrepancy in E-way Bill attracting seizure of goods. Goods directed to be released without insisting for a deposit of any amount and furnishing security as GST already paid on goods.
M/s.V.R.Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Madras High Court) When there was no cash involved in the transaction of allotment of shares, provisions of Section 68 of the said Act treating it as unexplained cash credit are not attracted. Learned counsel for the appellant assessee emphatically argued that inasmuch as the source of credit in […]
The short question in this appeal is whether the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the sole ground that the appellant had a right of reply to the show cause notice. The answer to the aforesaid question has to be in the negative, for the reasons discussed hereinbelow.
PCIT Vs JP Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) During the original assessment, both the questions raised by AO in reassessment notice, were already examined by AO through a specific queries raised in this respect. Therefore, reassessment being based on mere change of opinion was invalid. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT […]
we would permit the petitioner to carry on the legitimate business by suspending provisional attachments subject to fulfillment of following conditions: (i) The petitioner creates an undertaking to maintain a stock of the goods of a minimum of Rs. 5 crores. Such undertaking shall be filed before the department as well as before this Court by 15.11.2018;
