Customs authorities (DRI officials) have no power or jurisdiction to inspect or seize goods in respect of units situated in the SEZ area. The Court held that only the Officers empowered under Section 22 of the SEZ Act have the power to investigate any offence committed in the SEZ unit.
Section 278 (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Court to presume culpable mental state of the accused, unless, the accused shows that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in the prosecution.
The respondent’s case that it was entitled to forfeit the sum of ₹60,00,000/- paid by the petitioner rested solely on the ground that it was earnest money and therefore, it could be forfeited in terms of the Agreement.
Ram Gopal Sharma Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen and has been filing regular income tax return. In the instant case, return of income tax was filed on 23.07.2017 for the assessment year 2017-18. The same came in scrutiny and high […]
Bhima Enterprises Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) ‘ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD’ IN A TAXING STATUTE – SHOULD BE AN ERROR SELF-EVIDENT – HIGH COURT OF KERALA The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held in M/s. Bhima Enterprises Vs. State Tax Officer (Investigation Branch) & Anr (WP(C) No. 28526 of […]
Durga Dass Foundation Vs Estate Officer (Punjab & Haryana High Court) Punjab & Haryana HC has considered the constitutional validity of GST levy on ground rent/rental/Lease payments based on the following two substantial questions: (i) Whether the tax on lease of land would be covered by Entry 49 of List II of the Constitution of […]
C. Srimannarayana Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, SECBAD and Another (Telangana High Court) Facts- The petitioner was appointed as a dealer by respondent no. 1 for operating a retail outlet. As per the contract terms, the respondent had an absolute right to terminate the contract on the happening of certain events. On 05.07.2000, the respondent […]
K. L. Johar & Company Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) HC held that Once this Court directed that the time spent in the writ petition is to be excluded, the Appellate Authority could not have done otherwise. However, contrary to the binding observations of this Court, extracted above, the Appellate Authority refused to […]
HC held that mere association with a terrorist organisation as a member or otherwise will not be sufficient to attract the offence under Section 38 unless the association is with intention to further its activities.
Harish Chandra Bhati Vs PCIT (Allahabad High Court) Personal Affidavit of Shri Tarun Bajaj, Revenue Secretary to The Govt. of India has been taken on record. It provides for initiation of suitable administration action against the erring officer where assessments are found to be high pitched or there is non-observence of Principles of natural justice, […]
