Sri. A.P. Oree Vs ITO (Madras High Court) Any partition between the members of the joint family cannot terminate the status of HUF unless it is shown that the joint family property was physically divided in accordance with the agreement or decree of the court. It is the contention of the Income Tax Department […]
MMD Heavy Machinery (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Madras High Court) The case of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner had shut down its factory in Ambattur, Chennai in Tamil Nadu and shifted to Sri City, Andhra Pradesh during June 2016 much prior to implementation of GST. At […]
2nd respondent in not even adverting to the response given by petitioner to the Form GST MOV-07 in Form GST MOV – 09, and his deliberate intention to treat the validity of the expiry on the e-way bill as amounting to evasion of tax without any evidence of such evasion of tax by the petitioner.
Bangalore Turf Club Limited and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) Horse race clubs liable to pay GST only on commission and not entire bet amount; Rule 31A(3) of CGST Rules ultra vires The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (HC) in Bangalore Turf Club Limited and ors. v. Union of India [WP No. 11168/2018 and WP […]
CavinKare Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) It is the case of the petitioner that reopening of the assessment was based on the change of opinion for the year 2011-2012, and there was no ground for reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the purpose of Section 147 […]
Smart Vishwas Society Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi (Delhi High Court) In this case Petitioner, is correct in submitting that the provisions of Section 144B of the Act have been violated as no show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order was issued. That being the position, there is no option, but to set aside the impugned […]
Jagadish Nangineni Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Punjab and Haryana High Court) Conclusion: Since ED alleged that both assessees were actively involved in the planning and execution of all the transactions involving repeated transfer of funds and were accused of serious economic offences, therefore, grant of anticipatory bail to assessees at this stage would certainly result […]
While before grant of bail the Public Prosecutor was required to be given an opportunity to oppose the plea for bail and that where the Public Prosecutor opposed such plea the Court could order release of the accused on bail only after recording a satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be released was not guilty of the offence he was accused of and that while on bail he was not likely to commit any offence.
Since there was no material to proceed against assessee under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and High Court should quash the proceedings if it came to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue, would be an abuse of the process of the Court and that the ends of justice required that the proceedings be required to be quashed.
Pankaj Sharma Vs Union of India (Patna High Court) The Hon’ble Patna High Court in Pankaj Sharma vs. UOI & Ors. [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7431 dated June 01, 2021] set aside the order dismissing the appeal of the assessee passed by the Revenue Department, on the ground that the same is cryptic in […]
