Petitioner’s imported vessels namely; ‘Jag Arnav’, ‘Jag Ratan’ and ‘Jag Rani’ were exempted from the payment of custom duty when they were first called in Indian Port. The Petitioner’s contention relied on the fact that the Exemption Notification 2012 which levied custom duty on imported vessels was passed after the import of their vessel and cannot have a retrospective application. Hence exempted the Petitioner from the payment of custom duty
CIT to at least record a prima facie finding that certain amount claimed by assessee as deduction in its computation of income de facto related to earning of dividend income. Thus, it was held that in the absence of any such prima facie finding, the reassessment was erroneous and no addition could be made under section 14A.
The onus to prove the identity, the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was solely on assessee under section 68 and merely because statutory approvals had been obtained by assessee, viz., FIPB and RBI did not sanctify the transaction especially when according to AO they were all unexplained investment.
The contention of the Revenue is that Section 11 BB of the Central Excise Act would not be applicable in the present case as it is a delayed refund of certain exemptions and will not be covered by Section 11 BB of the Act
DCIT Vs Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Company Private Limited (Madras High Court) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) has filed the current appeal against Order W.P.No.1732 of 2020. dated February 04, 2020 on the ground that the Appellant was not provided with a hearing opportunity and that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras made […]
current petition has been filed against the notices issued by Dy. Commissioner (State Tax) Circle – Anti Evasion & Anr. (Respondent) which treated the beverage ‘Appy Fizz’ as a non-alcoholic beverage under the heading of 2202 99 90 making it liable to 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST).
Palak Khatuja Vs Union Of India (Chhattisgarh High Court) 1. The time for issuance of notice under Section 148, the end date was initially extended uptill on 30th day of April 2021 and subsequently again by notification dated 27th April, 2021 the time limit of 30th day of April 2021 was further extended up till […]
This bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, the petitioner failed to appear before the Department while notices were issued to him, secondly, even after filing of complaint before the learned Trial court, he remained absconded for about one year and thirdly, the petitioner is a chartered accountant, who is master mind of the crime and he has created 38 fake firms and availed ITC wrongfully to the tune of 6,36,32,492/-.
Revenue authorities were restrained from continuing with reassessment till further orders with respect to notices issued on or after 1-4-2021 without following the procedure prescribed under section 148A in 79 cases.
SEBI’s order appointing GTB as a forensic auditor challenged. High Court quashes decision due to bias concerns, orders new auditor appointment
