SYSKA LED Lights Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: Since the respective authority had confiscated the imported goods without providing an opportunity to importer to call upon the proper officer to disclose the grounds for valuation , therefore, the impugned order in original was clearly unsustainable in law being in violation […]
The criminal complaint case of cheating instituted against a company and its Directors over non-issuance of duplicate share certificates to the complainant was quashed as mere non-issuance of duplicate share certificates on misplacement by an alleged shareholder did not indicate malice on part of the company from the inception of the transaction and assessee acted with criminal intent at the inception on an anticipation that the shares would be misplaced at a subsequent stage.
The Delhi High Court Ruled That The Second FIR In Respect Of An Offence Or Different Offences Committed In The Course Of The Same Transaction Is Not Only Impermissible But It Violates Article 21 Of The Constitution.
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Vs TVS Motor Co. Ltd. (Madras High Court) The facts clearly show that there is direct nexus between the activity of TVSFS with that of the activity of the We say so because of the exclusive arrangement between the assessee and TVSFS. The Revenue has not disputed the factual […]
CIT Vs Miele India Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Mr. Chandra, did draw our attention to the AO’s view qua the issue, which was, that the advertising expenditure had been incurred to build a brand, i.e., goodwill and therefore, should not be allowed as a deduction, it does not impress us. There is nothing on […]
Senior Intelligence Officer Vs KPN Travels India Ltd. (Madras High Court) Learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that by attaching all 14 bank accounts, the business operations of the first respondent have been absolutely crippled and they are unable to pay salaries, discharge creditors, etc. In the light of the above, we direct […]
The Assessing Officer rejected the reply filed by the appellant by holding that there was no opening and closing stock of goods and all the goods were purchased as sold out during the assessment year. Further, the Trading, Profit and Loss Account disclosed gross loss and had the dealer sold all the goods purchased with a marginal increase in sale price over the purchase price, then the Trading Account would reflect a different picture with a gross profit.
Big Star G Services LLP Vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh (Gauhati High Court) Lottery includes gambling as an element of chance which requires no skill and as held by the Apex court it would not attain the status of trade like other trades or become res commercium. Accordingly, the petitioner has no right to invoke […]
Quantum Coal Energy (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) 1. Canon effect – SCNs being quashed since an officer who did assessment can only do re-assessment. 2. SCN quashed on the basis of Honorable SC Canon Ruling by Madras High Court in WP 10186 of 2014 vide order […]
NG Gadhiya Vs State of Jharkhand & Others (Jharkhand High Court) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the specific provision of sub-Sections 6 & 7 of Section 107 of the JGST Act and in view of the admitted position that the subsequent garnishee notices dated 15.01.2021 covers both the […]
