Telengana High Court held that statute has introduced limitation under section 39(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to rectify omission/ error in GSTR-1 return and accordingly assessee cannot be permitted to carry out rectification beyond the statutorily prescribed period.
Madras High Court held that order directing forfeiture of property u/s. 7 of the Competent Authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 is unsustainable as link or the nexus between the income of the detenue and the acquisition of the property is not established.
CIT Vs Hazira LNG Pvt Ltd (Gujarat High Court) CIT(A) recorded a finding that earning of the assessee from foreign exchange fluctuations was not in connection with its business activity. The finding was in the realm of appreciation of facts and material, therefore, is factual in nature. Such a finding came to be affirmed by […]
Jammu Kashmir High Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of additional toll chargeable on capital goods imported by it for undertaking substantial expansion of its unit in the year 2006 as the benefit for the time was made available in the year 2008.
Delhi High Court held that attachment under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) does not result in the effacement of rights in property, it would clearly stand and survive outside the scope of a moratorium that comes into effect in terms of section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2006.
Delhi High Court held that the consideration for the purchase of marketing and business rights for a period of twenty years is capital in nature and constitutes an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act and therefore eligible to claim depreciation.
Delhi High Court held that AO is not empowered to frame block assessment merely on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132(4) without reference to any other material discovered during the search and seizure operations.
The Honble Madras High Court observed that Juxtaposing the provisions of both the Acts viz., Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992, with each other, it is explicit that collection of any amount in excess of what has been prescribed as fee or in the nature of donation or voluntary contribution either directly or indirectly to the institution or through some other person or institution or trust, as quid pro quo for the seat in any educational institution, would render the activity of both the entities ungenuine.
Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017 makes it clear that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under Act may appeal to appellate authority within time limit prescribed in Statute.
Madras High Court held that an application seeking compassionate appointment lapsed several years from the death of the deceased employee is not allowable
