Brightcareer Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) HC quashed proceedings under Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 for transactions prior to 25-10-2016 1. The petitioner in the present case, apart from challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, has also challenged the […]
I hold that the comparison by the assessing officer between qualitatively different agreements with completely different terms and conditions was not appropriate.
HC held that mere selling of batteries by piece instead by weight does not make seller liable to be penalised under CGST Act, 2017
Vinayaka Steels Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) it was incumbent upon the authority under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to have heard the petitioner in person, prior to passing of the impugned order. That apart, the impugned order rejects the explanation tendered by the petitioner vide reply dated […]
Gaurav Trading Company Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) This Court finds that by ex parte order the first appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as he has failed to appear before the authority on 6.4.2021, 24.9.2021 and 2.11.2021. Taking a lenient view, this Court directs the Appellate Authority to reconsider the […]
CIT Vs Sardarmal Kothari (Madras High Court) There is no dispute about the fact that the assessees have invested the entire net consideration of sale of capital asset in the land itself and subsequently the assessees have invested large sums of money in the construction of the house. The cost of investment in land and […]
It is clear on the face of the record that the officer did not consider the detailed reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner while passing the impugned orders which are sketchy and non-speaking on the face of it.
CBDT had issued guidelines dated 10th September, 2011 mandating prior approval of the CCIT for scrutiny assessment and in the present case that was not obtained.
A mere discrepancy in filing the Income Tax Return instead of the Income Certificate, despite the two documents evidencing the same parameters of income requirements, cannot lead to a situation where an eligible meritorious candidate is deprived of the scholarship.
Not only the order is nonspeaking, but cryptic in nature and the reason of cancellation not decipherable therefrom. Principles of natural justice stand violated and the order needs to be quashed as it entails penal and pecuniary consequences.
