PCIT Vs Karavali Housing (Karnataka High Court) Section 80IB (10) it is not the mandate of the Section that the housing project must be on a vacant plot of land having minimum area of one acre and that where a new housing project is constructed on a plot of land having minimum area of one […]
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Review Petition and it was observed that the provisions of section 130 of the Act contemplate release of goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation at two stages (i) during the process of adjudication, under section 130(2) and, (ii) post-adjudication under section 130(3) of the Act.
We are of the view that the appellant should be permitted to remit the taxes, as quantified in the Form-3 declaration issued to the appellant, subject to of course by also paying interest @ 15% from 01.07.2020 till the date of remittance, which we shall fix as on or before 17.09.2021. If the appellants comply with the said condition, then the appropriate authority under the SVLDR Scheme shall consider the appellant’s application and proceed in accordance with the provisions of the said Scheme.
Unik Traders Vs Additional Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) Option to re-export imported goods, held to be prohibited goods, should be given to mitigate loss of importer Facts- It is the case of the petitioner that they are incurring Demurrage and Container Detention Charges for the containers to the liners as the imported consignments […]
The court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation vide judgement dated 26.03.2015 and it is apparent that the Court found no fault with or falsity in the report. Once the report passed the threshold of judicial scrutiny, there was no reason why the Disciplinary Committee of ICAI should have adjudicated the correctness or otherwise of the report.
PCIT Vs Akzo Noble India Limited (Calcutta High Court) Issue– Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned ITAT, Kolkata has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of sum of Rs.3.50 Crores and Rs.2.11 Crores for the assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively on account of slump sale of […]
Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the issue of SCN and culmination of the same in the impugned order in the name of amalgamating company is ex facie illegal and liable to be set aside. As issue of notice i.e., SCN and assessment qua a non-existent entity (albeit a juristic person) is a jurisdictional error warranting interference in writ jurisdiction is learned counsel’s say.
It should be kept in mind that the offences under Section 132(1)(b)(c)& (i) of the OGST Act are punishable with a maximum punishment of five years Rigorous Imprisonment. Therefore, investigation ought to be completed within 60 days as per Section 167 Cr.P.C. Of course, Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. permits the investigating agency to keep the investigation open. B
The assessee has not proved that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act does not have any application on the said payment of Rs.21,27,846. Hence, the A.O. was correctly disallowed the expenditure by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
Rajputana Stainless Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Facts- A notice alleging clandestine manufacture and clearance of finished goods during the period from 2012-13 to 2015-16 based on various statements recorded under section 14 of Central Excise Act. It included the statement of buyers and some of those buyers denied of having received […]
