Rohit Mehta Vs Superintendent (Preventive) (Punjab and Haryana High Court) The contention on behalf of the respondent- Department is that the day of remand is to be excluded while calculating the sixty days period. In view thereof 28.11.2021 would be the Sixtieth day, the same day the complaint had been filed. The application of the […]
Prakash Chandra Purohit Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench) During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submit that at present the only purpose of issuing Summons u/s 70 of CGST Act to the petitioners is to record their statements seeking to extract the role of the petitioners in the […]
Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd Vs CIT (Orissa High Court) The purpose of Section 43B of the Act was to ensure that a liability could be claimed as deduction only if the Assessee has actually parted with the sum without any recourse to it thereafter. In the present case, the interim stay granted in […]
Originative Trading Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The question that arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the remedy of the petitioner to lodge his objection to the order of provisional attachment under section 83 read with Rule 159(1) of the CGST Rules can be effectively exercised without communication […]
High Court held that in absence of specific allegations about the applicant he cannot be prosecuted for any offence under section 138 N.I. Act (Cheque Bounce Case).
Reopening of an assessment under Section 148 was not justified on the ground that AO was of the opinion that a contingency might arise in future resulting an escapement of income which would be wholly impermissible and would amount to a rewriting of the statutory provision.
GST registration once granted could be cancelled only if one of the five statutory conditions was found present. Per se, no GST registration may be cancelled by merely describing the firm that had obtained it, was ‘bogus’.
Pankaj s/o Roshan Dhawan Vs National e-Assessment Centre (Bombay High Court) HC held that we are satisfied that the assessment order dated 14.05.2021 has been passed without granting proper and meaningful opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice. It is not in dispute that as per show cause notice dated 10.04.2021 […]
PCIT Vs Smt. Sarojini M. Kushe (Karnataka High Court) In the present case, Assessing Officer has adopted the rate of Rs. 1600/- per square feet merely based on the letter given by the developer which is not supported with any particulars. It cannot be ruled out the possibility of the developer giving an inflated figure […]
Experience of a candidate being a relevant criteria in a selection to the post of Assistant Professor, we do not see the Selection Committee as having overstepped its jurisdictional limits while conducting the selection.
