R. J. Trading Co. Vs Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Search and Seizure carried out by the Inspector of CGST without authority of a proper jurisdictional officer is unlawful – Delhi High Court In case of R J Trading Company vs. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi (W.P.(C).4847/2021 it is held that […]
CIT Vs Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Limited (Madras High Court) Under the existing provisions of sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, carried forward unabsorbed depreciation is allowed to be set-off against profits and gains of business or profession of the subsequent year, subject to the condition that the business or profession […]
More Retail Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) In these bunch of petitions, petitioners have sought for direction to the respondents to effect the change of name of the petitioners Company i.e. M/s More Retail Limited to M/s More Retail Private Limited in excise license Form CL-2 issued by the Government of […]
Md. Nasim Ansari son of Late Md. Muslim Vs The State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State. 3. Heard Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party […]
Goa Carbon Ltd Vs JCIT (Bombay High Court at Goa) In the present case, the Assessee, apart from submitting an unsigned chart, allegedly based on the books of account maintained by the Assessee, had failed to produce on record any material in support of the substantial variation between the cost price and the market price. […]
CBI to enquire as to whether the email dated 31st May, 2021 had been issued to assessee or not, and if so, by whom. In the event it was found that the email dated 31st May, 2021 had been forged and fabricated by assessee it would initiate action under Sections 191/192/196 of the IPC. However, if it was found that the email dated 31st May, 2021 had been issued by the Income Tax of India’s e-filing portal, then it would not hesitate to take action against the Deponent
M/s. Ajanta Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Anr. (Delhi High Court) It is settled law that a petitioner who files a petition invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction has to come to Court with clean hand. Further, a petitioner who seeks equity must do equity. In commercial/appellate jurisdiction, a Court […]
Honourable Calcutta High Court too stayed the reassessment proceedings under section 148 read with section 148A , notices issued post 31/03/2021 and the notifications of extension of notices , following the ratio of the other HC judgements on similar issues . Interim order of STAY PASSED
Since the findings recorded by ITAT being findings of fact, the appeal could not be entertained in absence of any substantial question of law being involved in the same, therefore, appeal of authority was dismissed.
R M Dairy Products LLP Vs State of U P (Allahabad High Court) provision of Rule 86-A is not a recovery provision but only a provision to secure the interest of revenue and not a recovery provision, to be exercised upon the fulfillment of the conditions, as we have discussed above, we are not inclined […]
