Kalpana Chimanlal Shah Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) The Assessing Officer examined the petitioner’s declaration of sale of immovable property and resultant loss, which she claimed. The Assessing Officer called for the purchase and sale deeds as also supporting evidence for computation of capital gain. The assessee produced such documents and the approved valuer’s report assessing […]
CIT Vs Shiv Agrevo Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court) The prevailing market rates of interest for the loans of permanent nature were between 18 per cent, to 24 per cent, whereas the cases compared by AO pertained to the loans of temporary nature and that the assessee had advanced money for the purpose of business needs. […]
The submission of Sri Vishwjit, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the seizure is on account of non filing Part-B of E-way Bill. Part-B of E-Way Bill requires the details of the vehicle carrying the goods and the destination.
Gujarat HC dismisses petition by Apollo Screens Pvt Ltd. to carry forward CENVAT Credit, citing lack of evidence for technical filing errors.
Alankar Sahkari Griha Rachana Sanstha Vs Atul Mahadev Bhagat & Anr (Bombay High Court) When the persons come together with common object of housing, after formation of a Cooperative Society, they are governed under rules and bye-laws of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. So far as the members are concerned, the Cooperative Housing Society can collect […]
CIT Vs Smt. Meenakshi Devi Avaru (Karnataka High Court) Protective, precautionary or alternate assessment is an assessment which is made ex- abundanti cautela by the Assessing Authority and is therefore called protective or Precautionary Assessment or alternative assessment. When the Department has any doubt as to the person who is or will be deemed to […]
Whether RBD Palm Stearin would fall under Chapter 1511 – ‘Palm Oil and its fractions, whether or not refined but not chemically modified’ or under Chapter 382311 ‘Industrial monocarboxylic fatty acid, acid oils from refining, stearic acid, Palm Stearin.
The petitioner seeks a declaration that sub-rule (2) of Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as substituted by notification no. 23/24/ST dated December 25, 2014 is arbitrary and in conflict with provisions of Section 72A of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that, the provisions of clause (k) of subsection (2) of Section 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 is unguided and gives uncontrolled power of delegation. The third prayer is with regard to a notice dated February 16, 2015.
M/s Viraat Traders Vs State of Punjab and others (Punjab and Haryana HC) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 23.05.2018 passed by Excise and Taxation Officer Ludhiana-3 cancelling the registration of the petitioner under the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘the Punjab GST Act’) It is not […]
M/s. Balaji Construction Company Vs state Of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) It is stated that the petitioner had applied well in time for registration under the GST Act to enable him to migrate within a specific time period. In spite of various reminders, the concerned authorities have not completed the process of migration and now […]
