Delhi High Court held that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner culpable under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as property was obtained as the result of the criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.
Calcutta High Court held that disability certificate shows the disability was assessed by the doctor of the Board of Contai S.D. Hospital and their expertise and experience cannot be doubted in absence of any rebuttable evidence on record. Award granted by Ld. Tribunal justified.
Telangana High Court held that the accused officer is entitled to acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused Officer with substantial and constructive evidence that he had demanded and accepted the bribe.
Jharkhand High Court held that once the penalties are cancelled on the ground that there is no concealment, the quashing of prosecution under section 276C of the Income Tax Act is automatic.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that Co-operative Bank is liable to tax the interest on the sticky loans/NPAs on receipt basis
Chhattisgarh High Court held that lease charges paid by the Railways Department to the Petitioner Company is not subjected to levy of VAT as the taxable event is the transfer of right to use goods and not right to use goods or the use of goods
In present matter, the Honble Gujarat High Court held that prefacing the discussion on the aspects of law involved in the controversy and the application of provisions of the Act and the Rules, it has to be recollected that the provisions regarding countervailing duty, are based on the international treaty obligation.
ITAT has allowed the appeals of the Assessees following the judgement of this Court in Director of Income Tax v. Sheraton International Inc (2009) 178 taxman 84 (Del). He, however, states that the said decision of this Court has not been accepted by the Revenue and an appeal has been preferred against the same, which is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court being CA No. 3094/2010.
In the instant case, officer deemed it necessary to carry out physical verification of the petitioner’s place of business before proceeding to pass the impugned order, which resulted in the cancellation of petitioner’s GST registration. Concededly, no notice was issued to the petitioner requiring, as mandated by Rule 25, his presence at the time of verification.
Patna High Court held that the order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, is liable to be quashed and set aside.
