Mahimananda Mishra Vs ACIT (Orissa High Court) A plain reading of ection 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 indicates that the taxing of the deemed dividend has to be in the hands of the shareholder of OSL. In the present case, admittedly it is Mr. Mishra in his individual capacity who holds 36.95% of […]
Dilip Bhikhalal Desai Vs DCIT (Calcutta High Court) Justice Shekhar B Saraf in this order was dealing with challenge to the order u/s 148A(d) and Notice u/s 148 dated 29th July,2022 which was passed by the AO for the AY 2015-16 admittedly relying on the Instruction No 01/2022 dated 11th May, 2022 and Appellant argued […]
This Court finds that the taxing authorities as well as the appellate authority should not pass orders in a mechanical manner, when it is dealing with the commercial and financial matter, which affects the revenue of the State.
Sumiti Alloys Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P (Allahabad High Court) HC find that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding of fact which needs no interference by this Court as there was difference in the stock found by the survey team on the premises of the assessee on the basis of which the […]
Statement of a truck driver cannot be the basis for initiating penalty proceedings. Statement of truck driver which has been recorded by officer of department is not corroborated by any proof and said statement cannot be relied upon for initiating penalty proceedings.
HC held that cancellation of GST Registration due to non-filing of returns can be revoked if assessee files pending returns and pays the taxes, fines, interest along with fee due.
Ball Aerosol Packaging India Private Limited Vs ACIT (Gujarat High Court) In this case what emerges from the record is that no fresh tangible material distinct from what was made available by the petitioner during the assessment proceedings is emerging and specific queries which have been raised with regard to issues now raised have already […]
Jharkhand High Court held that benefit under SVLDRS scheme cannot be denied by the designated committee on the reason that department has decided to file an appeal against the OIO.
Bombay High Court held that purchases cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure (i.e. fictitious purchases) merely because suppliers have not appeared before AO or CIT(A).
Telangana High Court held that issuance of search warrant without recording the ‘reasons to believe’ is against the provisions of section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 and accordingly the same is liable to be set aside.
