Shaik Moulali Vs Sate of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court) This Writ Petition for mandamus is filed to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in levying property tax against the unofficial respondent No.3 in respect of the property in question, as illegal. 2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader […]
Sakshi Bahl & Anr. Vs. Principal Additional Director General (Delhi High Court) HC held that based on facts and documents summitted it is clear that the petitioners are not taxable persons. The power under Section 83 of the Act, to provisionally attach assets or bank accounts is limited to attaching the bank accounts and assets […]
Due to non-constitution of Tribunal, petitioner is deprived of his statutory remedy under Sub-Section (8) and Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of B.G.S.T. Act.
As per the provisions of Section 148A(b) 07 days time is required to be given for giving reply to this notice and this provision is mandatory
Tvl. Rising International Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (Madras High Court) M/s.Rising International Company (legal name, Kailashkumar), Madurai, the petitioner herein, is a dealer registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act. It imports toys from China. It also purchases goods from Delhi-based dealers. The dealer’s specific stand is that returns […]
Calcutta High Court held that invocation of revisional jurisdiction by PCIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act ignoring the order passed u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act as immaterial and irrelevant unjustified.
Calcutta High Court held that by availing only 85% of credit on common input service, obligation under rule 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) is fulfilled.
Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham Vs CIT (Kerala High Court) Disposing an IT Appeal in M/s. Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax (I.T.A. NO.120 of 2019 dated: 14.03.2023) it is held by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala that, a return filed by a […]
Delhi High Court held that revised return as well as chartered accountant’s certificate supports the typographical error. Accordingly, OHA directed to determine correct turnover and tax liability thereon.
Delhi High Court held that there is no requirement to file a fresh claim under DVAT 21 as the claim of refund was embedded by the assessee in its return.
