Magma Industries Limited Vs Designated Committee Office of Commissioner CGST & 2 Ors. (Allahabad High Court) Clearly, a person against whom an enquiry, investigation or audit may be pending and whose ‘tax dues’ may not have been ‘quantified’, would remain ineligible to make a declaration on form SVLDRS-1. According to the revenue, for the purposes […]
The tax authorities must make a clear distinction between deliberate tax evasion and technical or minor defects which manifest no intention to evade tax. When the IGST liability has been fully discharged, no intention can be attributed on part of the petitioner to evade tax. In the present case, therefore, we would release the machinery upon the petitioner filing an undertaking before this Court that eventually subject to appeal and further right to challenge the order of assessment, if any tax or penalty liability is crystallized, the petitioner would discharge the same.
Davis Raphel Vs Hendry Thomas (Kerala High Court) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant in the civil suit challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2019 in A.S.No.58/2016 of the Sub Court, Payyannur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first appellate court’) by which judgment, the first appeal of the defendant was dismissed […]
The Petitioner was alleged of unjustly availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) on fake invoices and E-way bills alongside Mr. Amit Kumar (Co-accused). While seeking bail, the Petitioner contended that he has been in custody for a month, as on date, with effect from July 19, 2021 and therefore, his further custodial detention is absolutely not necessary in the interest of investigation of the case.
N. Raveendran Vs Shajahan (Kerala High Court) The absence of salutation Like Mr./M/s. while drawing the cheque by accused cannot be a ground for the accused to be acquitted from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT This appeal arises out of the judgment […]
Jaidayal Prannath Kapur Vs CIT (Madras High Court) The assessment for the Assessment Year under consideration, AY 2002-03, was reopened and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. From the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order, dated 19.12.2007, we find that, initially, the assessee did not extend full cooperation […]
The Music Academy Madras Vs DDIT (Exemptions) (Madras High Court) It is not in dispute that the substantial questions of law framed for consideration have been answered in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona reported in (2018) 402 ITR 0441 […]
The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. (supra), was followed in CIT vs.Nayyars Minerals Export (P.) Ltd. reported in (1998) 231 ITR 864 (HP), wherein it was held that hiring of certain machineries from sister concern would not amount to transfer as provided under Section 80J(4)(ii) of the Act.
CIT Vs Indian Overseas Bank (Madras High Court) The question as to whether the date, on which the order under Section 147 of the Act was passed should be reckoned as the starting point of limitation, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has been dealt with by several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme […]
CIT Vs Wheels India Limited (Madras High Court) After hearing the submissions of the auhorized representative of the assessee, the CIT(A) perused the copies of the agreement and on facts, found that the amounts paid by the assessee were sales commission and marketing services to nonresident agents outside India for their services rendered outside India […]
