Merely of none mentioning of the vehicle no. in Part-B of E-Way Bill cannot be a ground for seizure of the goods. We hold that the order of seizure is totally illegal and once the petitioner has placed the material and evidence with regard to its claim, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent no.2 to consider and pass an appropriate reasoned order.
Suolificio Linea Italia (India) (P) Ltd. Vs JCIT (Calcutta High Court) Conclusion: Deduction under section 80-IB was not allowable in case assessee did not file its return of income for relevant assessment year within period prescribed under section 139(1) as per the condition imposed by section 80AC. Held: When the governing provision i.e., section 80AC […]
No notice was served to the petitioner under Section 148(1) of the IT Act and service of notice to the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner Company is not service at all and participation of the petitioner Company by filing return and filing objection to the notice to the reasons to believe cannot be held to be a valid service of notice
The investigating officer has objected to granting bail on the ground that further investigation is required to ascertain the source of huge money handed over to Ramesh Goenka through Pranjal Sarma. Investigation is being carried out to ascertain the mode of transfer of the bribe to the Income Tax Commissioner and how the part of the bribe was shared with other accused and as such release of accused at this stage may hamper the investigation.
1. This bunch of writ petitions have been filed by persons who were directors in companies incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Apart from these companies, these petitioners have stated in the writ petitions that they were directors of other companies as well. In several cases, we are informed that the companies in which they were directors are still active.
M/s Hillways Construction Company Private Limited Vs Income Tax Department and others (Uttarakhand High Court); Admittedly Section 420 of IPC is an offence which comes under Chapter XVII of the IPC. Income Declaration Scheme (IDS), 2016, of which the petitioner is seeking benefit, categorically stipulates that in case prosecution is going on against a person […]
CBDT Vs. Satya Narain Shukla (Delhi High Court) A plain reading of Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 indicates that the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to Intelligence and Security Organizations as specified in the Second Schedule. Further, any information received from such organizations falls under the exclusionary clause […]
Mr. Milind Gawai, Commissioner of Central Tax Pune-I Commissionerate in his additional affidavit-in-reply filed in Writ Petition (St.) No.2230 of 2018 has, firstly, indicated that the system error or fault or what is called IT related glitch would be a grievance definitely looked into and is being looked into by Grievance Redressal Committee.
Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) The allegations with regard to the CIT(A) mentioning of incorrect dates in the order sheet and the office of the CIT[E] threatening to attach the Petitioner’s bank account and reopen Assessments for the last two years in case it fails to deposit the amount of […]
Indo Arya Central Transport Limited & Ors. Vs. CIT – TDS (Delhi High Court) HC held that At this stage, it will neither be fair nor proper for the writ court to question and decide the question of validity of Sanction Order on merits of reasonable cause etc. as it would amount to a pre […]
