It is not disputed that section 40(a)(ia), Second proviso is for the benefit of the assessee and when a provision has been made in fiscal statute for benefit of assessee, in the absence of any express provision or a provision which by necessary implication gives a different impression, such provision which is beneficial to the assessee must be read and given effect to retroactively.
Assessee clearly failed to specify as to how she derived undisclosed income and under what head it fell in (rent, capital gains, professional or business income out of money lending source of the income, etc. Unless such facts were mentioned with some specificity, it could not be said that conditions in section 271AAA(2) were satisfied by the assessee.
This Appealunder Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 11th March, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2009-10.
CIT Vs M/s T.V. Sundaram Ayangar & Sons (Uttarakhand High Court) It is stated that since there was no authorized translator in the Department as well as in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, it took some time to translate the documents. Lastly, it is stated that due to above mentioned reasons, delay has […]
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered company having its registered office at Gurugram, Haryana. The petitioner company is also registered under the GST Act, 2017 and is carrying on business of transportation of goods from one place to another.
S.B.G.C Logistics Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) In view of the decision taken by the Government that if the goods are transported within a distance of 50 km in the case of intra-state transaction, there is no requirement to fill up ‘Part B’. Notification no.12 of 2018 dated 07.03.2018 craves out an exception […]
SBI Cards & Payments Services Pvt Ltd Vs Rohidas Jadhav (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court has recently accepted service of notice in an execution application through WhatsApp after noting that notice served in the form of a PDF file was not only delivered, but the attachment was opened as well. 1. The Respondent to […]
Nila Infrastructure Limited vs. Surat Municipal Corporation (Gujarat High court) Non-payment of GST along with the bid fee to procure a tender would amount to non-compliance with the remittance of bid fee – bidder would be liable for disqualification- Gujarat High court FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT / ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: 1.0. […]
It is seen that an identical matter has been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1802 of 2017, directing expeditious completion of the adjudication of the matter and permitting release of the goods detained pending adjudication, in terms of rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
The order mentioning the State / Central GST instead of IGST provisions could not be held as bad in law as the seizure of goods under section 129 of the SGST Act exists in CGST Act as well.
