PCIT Vs Shukla Dairy Pvt. Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) We note that during the assessment proceedings, assesses had submitted before assessing officer (AO), the cash payment register and explained each of the item of proposed addition as per show cause notice of assessing officer. The cash payment register, which is placed at paper book page […]
ACNielsen Research Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court) The petitioner had an appeal pending before the Hon’ble CESTAT. The petitioner has deposited a sum for the said appeal. The petitioner availed benefit of SVLDR Scheme. It filed SVLDRS Form 1. Form 3 was issued. It paid the directed sum in time. […]
Allahabad High Court rejected the bail application as 482 applications filed by other co-accused have already been rejected. Further, the said application is also rejection in absence of merit and substance.
Calcutta High Court directed the assessing officer to apply the net profit rate as ordered by the Tribunal to the entire receipts i.e. disclosed and undisclosed.
Delhi High Court held that the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides an able machinery for assessment/reassessment of tax, the Assessee is not permitted to abandon with the machinery and invoke writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that if a special provision has been made qua a particular subject (here Value Added Tax), the said subject is excluded from the general provisions (here, Indian Penal Code). Since the provisions of the VAT Act do not provide for the registration of the FIR and the said Act is a Code in itself, the provisions of the IPC also cannot be invoked.
Patna High Court in liquor smuggling has directed the State Government in particular the State Tax Department to develop a mechanism in consultation with the GST Council to block the generation of E-way Bills with respect to such trucks which are seized and confiscated in the State of Bihar.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that this court cannot be approached for protecting either the illegal occupation or unauthorized construction. Unauthorized construction, if it is illegal cannot be compounded and has to be demolished.
Bombay High Court held that there is no satisfactory explanation as to why from October 2014 till now no adjudication has taken place. Further, transfer of impugned notice to call book is also not informed to the petitioner. Hence, the same is against the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed.
Delhi High Court held that rejection of basis adopted by the assessee of the disallowance offered under section 14A after due application of mind and considering the reply furnished by the assessee is acceptable
