A.F. Babu Vs Goods and Service Tax Council & Ors. (Kerala High Court) Kerala HC held that petitioner may apply to the Nodal Officer. The petitioner applying, the Nodal Officer will look into the issue and facilitate the petitioner’s uploading FORM GST TRAN-1, without reference to the time-frame. Ordered so. It was further held that […]
Nalini Chidambaram Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Madras High Court) It is an admitted fact that initially the appellant was permitted to appear through the authorised agent. The impugned notice was issued on finding certain new facts and contradiction in the statements given, which could not be satisfactorily explained by the authorised agent. The appellant has been rendering a professional service by travelling extensively throughout the country. While doing so, the question of determination of sex did not stand in any way. However, for appearing before an authority, which is mandated by law, she seeks protective discrimination as a […]
Mere hand written paper could not be construed as books of account or documents in terms of section 153C and such documents having no signature of assessee-company or its employees could not be stated as belonging to assessee, so as to invoke section 153C.
The issue of notice under section 143(2) in reassessment proceedings, prior to finalizing re-assessment order, cannot be condoned by referring to section 292BB and it was fatal to the order of reassessment.
Navneet Kumar Vs.Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) Additional Director General of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. A notice to show cause can be issued under Section 124 of the Act of 1962 by the persons named in […]
It cannot be concluded on the basis that the assessee had not filed its income tax returns in earlier years that the activities of the assessee were not genuine. There was no dispute that the objects of the assessee-society were not charitable or the activities of assessee were not being carried on in accordance with the stated objectives of imparting education for which it was established. Mere generation of surplus from year to year could not be basis to hold that assessee existed for the purpose of making profit. Therefore, denial of registration was not justified.
Although the petitioner enjoys provisional registration, the final registration could not have done as the office of the petitioner is located at a very remote area. Such area had faced various political problems over a considerable period of time, preventing the petitioner from taking appropriate steps with regard to obtaining of final registration.
Petitioner Shri Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka and Neeraj Jain were arrested on 12.05.2018 due to their involvement in the business of generating and selling of fake tax invoices to various entities without supplying the underlying goods or services, thereby facilitating irregular availment and utilization of input tax credit by such entities to whom such fake invoices were issued.
Petitioners had ceased to be the Directors of the Company, as stated by them, on 8thApril, 2011 and that they could not have been penalized for the failure of the company to effect statutory compliances.
CIT Vs M/s. L & T Finance Ltd (Bombay High Court) In none of these orders there is any whisper of the alleged particulars of income which has been concealed or what particulars of income which have been filed is inaccurate. Mere using the words that there has concealment of income and / or furnishing inaccurate […]
