Ranjeet @ Ranjeet Singh Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) Supplementary counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the complainant today in the Court is taken on record. Heard Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. […]
Service tax due not disallowed under section 43 if payment not received from the customer
During the course of search, various documents, cash and jewellery were seized. Statements of the petitioner, his family members, employees and directors of associate companies were recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. The petitioner had surrendered Rs.20 crores before Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department on 21stApril, 2014.
O/E/N India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court) 1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to the Respondent No. 3 to allow the Petitioners to resubmit his Form TRAN1 either electronically or physically, containing the correct figure of Cenvat credit available to the Petitioners under the Central Goods and Services […]
There is merit in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that since the goods confiscated are cumin seed (Zeera) and fennel seed (Saunf) which are perishable in nature as also the vehicle, they need to be released forthwith.
Under the RTI Act, disclosure of information is a norm and refusal an exception. In other words, information cannot be denied under the RTI Act unless exempted from disclosure in accordance with Sections 8, 9 and 11 only. Section 22 as mentioned above leads the way to making the fundamental right to information a reality by enforcing it by simply invoking the provisions of the RTI Act.
PCIT Vs Inarco Limited (Bombay High Court) The grievance of the Revenue before us is that the Assessing Officer omitted to consider Section 50C of the Act while passing the order dated 26.12.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, it is submitted that the reopening notice dated 11.3.2010 is valid in law. In this […]
PCIT Vs N.S. Software (Firm) (Delhi High Court) It is now a settled proposition of law that even if AO for the person from whose premises documents were seized is the same as the AO for the person to whom document belonged, separate satisfaction notes must be recorded. In the instant case, the AO’s note […]
Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Issues Before High Court (i) On account of technical glitches in the Government portal, despite efforts made by the petitioners for filing the declaration electronically, the same could not be done within extended time for no fault of the petitioners. Thus, the tax credit […]
Association of National Exchanges Members of India Vs SEBI (Bombay High Court) CBDT has clarified that where a derivative contract is being settled by physical delivery of shares, the transaction would not be any different from transaction in equity share where the contract is settled by actual delivery or transfer of shares. It further states […]
