Our attention has been drawn to a recent pronouncement of this High Court in the case of Dharamshil Agencies vs. Union of India, Special Civil Application No.8255 of 2019 decided on 23.07.2021 wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed that the exercise of pre-consultation should not be a mere eye-wash. Pre-consulation should be meaningful.
HC set aside the rejection of application of GST registration on the ground that, if for the purpose of proof of business ownership there is an option to furnish either house tax receipts or electricity bill receipts, then application cannot be rejected on the basis of non-compliance if receipt of electricity bills are not furnished.
Manish Scrap Traders Vs Principal Commissioner (Gujarat High Court) Way back in the year 2016, in the case of Kaneria Granito Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Civil Application No.14497 of 2014 decided on 27.06.2016, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court took the view that a cash credit account cannot be provisionally attached. […]
Bail was allowed to accused person of committing fraud, misappropriation of money to the tune of Rs.1800 crores as investigation had not been completed despite the filing of the complaint on 30.10.2021.
But if the Court permits payment of fine as compensation to the complainant directly, it enables the accused to pay the entire fine as compensation directly to the complainant, as is the case with the sentence in C.C.785/2003, the Magistrate cannot insist that fine is to be paid in Court and it cannot be paid directly to the complainant and is to be paid to the complainant only after making necessary entries in Form No.20.
Arunaben Kanaiyalal Patel L/R of Late Kanaiyalal Dalsukh Patel Vs ACIT (Gujarat High Court) The subject matter of challenge in the present writ application is to the notice of reopening issued under Section 148 of the Act for the A.Y. 2017-18, essentially on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction as the impugned notice […]
Svitzer Hazira Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) In the facts of the present case, it is clear from the digital signature on the notice issued by Respondent No.1 that the notice was issued at 2.40 p.m. on 31/03/2019. The sanction by the authority under Section 151 was digitally signed at 2.55 p.m. on […]
Vinay Shanker Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court) The writ petitioner seeks a direction to the 5th and 6th respondents to increase the number of seats to the Veterinary and Dental Courses so as to implement the reservation category of Economically Weaker Section and a further direction to respondents 5 and 6 to implement […]
Sudhir Kumar Hasija Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution itself has been launched under the wrong premise that the petitioner has not filed his return, but the fact remains that the petitioner was issued with two Pan cards bearing numbers AKKPS7295P and […]
G. Victor Devasahayam Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) It is not disputed that sanction under Section 279 (1) of Income Tax Act is already been granted and sanctioned for the offence under Section 276(C)(1) and other offences. Since the expression unless the sanction had been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as […]
