Bombay High Court held that notice not setting out the material that provided the basis for assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law.
Delhi High Court held that filing of multiple patent claims in respect of the same invention amounts to evergreening or layering of patent protection, which is impermissible under the Indian Patent Law.
Orissa High Court held that treatment of supply of ballast and chips and deduction of incidental charges from gross turnover is decided in favour of assessee in D.K. Construction case i.e. supply subject to 4% tax, accordingly, Assessing Authority directed to re-compute the tax liability based on observation in D.K. Construction case.
Madras High Court held that export of goods is not a condition precedent or sine qua non to qualify as a Zero Rate sale as long as the sale falls within clause(ii) of Section 18 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (TNVAT).
Delhi High Court held that as per explanation inserted to Condition No. 104, exemption condition would be satisfied if the aircraft imported is used for non-scheduled (passenger) services or non-scheduled (charter) services. Accordingly, use of imported aircraft by non-scheduled (passenger) services, shall not be construed to be a violation of conditions of imports at concessional rate of duty.
Shukla Enterprises Private Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Writ petition is directed against order dated 29.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Besides this, challenge is also laid to the show cause notice dated 25.05.2022 issued under Section 148 A(b) of […]
Bhagwati Agency Vs Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise (Orissa High Court) 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. Sidhhartha Ray, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. We have also heard Mr. A. Kedia, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the […]
Delhi High Court held that impugned order directing GAIL to pay a sum of money which is not due and payable by GAIL is not sustainable.
Order under Section 148A(d) appears from record, is perverse and is in total non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed.
Record shows that reassessment proceedings have been triggered based on information received by respondent/revenue via a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP).
