Follow Us:

All High Courts

Allow Form TRAN-1 upload & ITC credit available during migration: HC

June 28, 2018 3870 Views 0 comment Print

If the petitioner applies within two weeks after receiving this judgment, the Nodal Officer will consider and take steps within a week thereafter. If the uploading of FORM GST TRAN-1 is not possible for reasons not attributable to the petitioner, the authority will also enable him to take credit of the input tax available at the time of migration.

Tax Evasion Cannot Be Presumed If Goods In Transit were Not Marketable

June 28, 2018 1677 Views 0 comment Print

Dept. t explanation for cancellation of e-suvidha declaration. Appellant replied that the goods being transported were Auto three wheelers fitted with BS III Engines and because sale thereof were prohibited by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the goods which were being transported stood reduced to scrap and were not marketable, those were to be returned to be consigner. T

Stock valuation method can be changed to compute Actual Income/loss

June 27, 2018 7179 Views 0 comment Print

United Bank of India Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court) The present accounting principle being followed by the bank is valuation of the closing stock on cost or market value whichever is lower. They want to apply this principle to the stock in trade acquired in the financial year i.e. 1984-85 prior to the assessment year […]

Lok Adalat cannot adjudicate a lis on merit except settlement

June 27, 2018 1560 Views 0 comment Print

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Lok Adalat could not have passed the order on merits and should have been referred the case to the Regular Court for adjudication and if the orders are passed thereafter the substantial right of the petitioner would have been affected, therefore, the impugned order dated 09.09.2017 be set aside and the case be referred to the regular Court for decision on merits.

Film distribution right acquisition expense cannot be claimed if Film is not commercially exploited

June 26, 2018 3447 Views 0 comment Print

Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court) Rule 9B(5) starts with a non-obstante Under the said rule, it is laid down that deduction under Rule 9B shall not be allowed unless the distributor credits in the books of accounts, the amounts realised by the distributor in case where the distributor himself has exhibited […]

Printer being part of computer system eligible for 60% depreciation

June 26, 2018 15336 Views 0 comment Print

CIT Vs. Cactus Imaging India (P.) Ltd. (Madras High Court) It can be inferred that the machines ‘computer printers’ under consideration can either be called computers-printers, since a lot of independent functions done by the computers are done by these printers and they can be called an integral part of the computer system. It should […]

Chhattisgarh VAT: SCN issued after three calendar years from the date of Original Assessment Order are invalid

June 26, 2018 1788 Views 0 comment Print

M/s Kishan Lal Vs Additional Commissioner Of Commercial Tax (Chhattisgarh High Court) In the proviso (a) to sub-section (3) of Section 49 of the VAT Act an embargo has been created for the purpose that no proceeding initiating suo motu revision under Section 49 (3) shall be initiated after the expiry of three calendar years […]

RBI, ED and CBI looked upon as ‘guardians of citizens’ rights’ : Bombay HC

June 26, 2018 837 Views 0 comment Print

We are concerned in this petition with the actions of the RBI and the Enforcement Directorate, both of whom refer to the criminal proceedings launched by the CBI. Those in-charge of their affairs and those in power giving them directions ought to realise that nothing would be achieved if foundations and base of these institutions is shaken and if they allegedly obey every command of the political masters

Return filed in response to notice U/s. 153A(1)(a) eligible for Section 139(3) benefits

June 25, 2018 12327 Views 0 comment Print

Where no return was filed by assessee within statutory mandated time and the obligation to file any return remains suspended till such time that a notice was issued for such purpose under section 153A(1)(a), such return would be deemed to have been filed within the time permitted under section 139(1) and benefit under section 139(3) could be availed of by assessee.

A person cannot be disqualified for non submission of his resignation by company in question

June 25, 2018 1527 Views 0 comment Print

It is submitted that in the above facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner has resigned from the directorship of the company in question, the petitioner would not incur a disqualification under Section 164 of the Companies Act. Consequently, the disqualification of the petitioner as notified in the lists dated 6thSeptember, 2017 and 12th September, 2017 by the respondent no.1 was incorrect and illegal.

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031