Air Customs Vs Begaim Akynova (High Court Delhi) The petitioner, vide the present petition has sought the setting aside of the impugned order dated 06.01.2021 of the learned CMM, New Delhi vide which the learned Trial Court granted permission to the respondent-Begaim Akynova to travel abroad to her home for one year from 06.01.2021 to […]
Real Prince Spintex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) It was held that the refund of the IGST paid on the exports cannot be denied on the ground that the higher rate of duty drawback is claimed and circulars are issued only to clarify the statutory provision and it cannot alter or […]
Maa Vindhya Vasini Constructions V. Sujit Kumar C.E.O (Allahabad High Court) The grievance of the applicant company is that despite deposit of GST from its own source, opposite parties failed to refund the applicant the tax component. Aggrieved, applicant approached this Court by filing a writ petition which came to be disposed of vide order […]
Having considered the arguments advanced and also the instructions communicated to us on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent nos. 1 and 2 for not establishing Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal for the State of Uttar Pradesh without leave of this Court.
According to Mr. Mahna, the administrative approval of Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax was obtained by the Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax only on 30.03.2018, i.e., after the issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act.
Ahinsha Chemicals Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court) This petition is instituted on the grievance that the Notification dated 27.03.2008 having been restored as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, two application dated 28.09.2020 under Clause 3(1) of the Notification No.20/2008-Central Excise dated 27.03.2008 was submitted by the petitioner claiming for a […]
The present writ petition has been filed on 08.12.2020 with a delay of 1282 days. The entire blame for the delay has been placed at the door step of the tax consultant, who, according to the petitioner had prepared an appeal against the impugned order and, the petitioner believed, would file the same. The petitioner states that it could not follow up the matter with the consultant on account of severe financial losses and infighting between the partners in regard to the company’s management. No evidence whatsoever, has been placed in support of this submission and the delay of 1282 days amounting to nearly three years cannot be condoned on mere ipse dixit. Hence this Writ Petition is dismissed in limine.
PCIT Vs Singhal Exim Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) On the aspect of additions being made under Section 68 of the Act, we notice that the ITAT was intrigued with the approach of the AO, and rightly so, in our view. The Assessee had worked out the business income after considering the sales and purchases […]
Shyam Sunder Sethi Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court) The fact that the appeal included a plea of condonation of delay is not in dispute. Therefore, the appeal could not have been admitted unless the delay was condoned. But that by itself does not efface the fact that the appeal was pending. An appeal would be […]
Court On ITS Own Motion Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT 1. To deal with the raging COVID-19 Pandemic, and to provide protection to the masses, the Central Government and the State Governments have rolled out the vaccination drive. In the first round, the frontline […]
