This is one more matter wherein serious allegations of harassment, coercion, threats, etc. have been alleged against the respondents Nos.4 and 5 respectively herein. It appears that the search was undertaken under Section 67 of the Act at the premises of the writ applicant, and in the course of the search, the respondents Nos.4 and 5 are alleged to have caused undue harassment to the writ applicant. It is alleged that the writ applicant was forced and threatened to transfer an amount of Rs.2.68 Crore by way of the DRC – 03.
Netrika Trends Vs Deputy Commissioner Appeals (Gujarat High Court) HC disposes writ application with a direction to the respondents that once the writ applicant comes forward with a request for transfer of the Input Tax Credit in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act, the request shall be immediately look into […]
B V Harish Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) In this case Karnataka High Court quashed and set aside a criminal case registered against founders of Bitcoin company, Unocoin for setting up a Bitcoin ATM in Bengaluru in 2018 as the case has been registered against the petitioners based on the Circular dated 06.04.2018 […]
If it is proved by the applicant accused that his health condition is not good then I do not intend to arrest the applicant accused subject to his cooperation in investigation on following points – i) If the applicant accused is ready to share all the credential of crypto wallet and relevant information. ii) If the applicant accused is ready to deposit Rs.1,25,32,691.00 (Liability of the applicant accused) to the Hon’ble Court. iii) If the applicant accused is ready to submit his property details, bank account, mail credentials.
Union Bank Of India E Andhra Bank Vs Union Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Considering the fact that the resolution plan has already been approved in this matter, and that the ED’s order of provisional attachment of the properties of Respondent No. 4 has been passed after the approval of the resolution plan […]
When the appeal was taken up learned Counsel for the appellant submitted the tax effect involved in the present appeal is below ₹ one crore. He prayed for withdrawal of the present appeal.
Hitesh Nagwani Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) (Madhya Pradesh High Court) From the record, it appears that the allegations of evasion of huge amount of customs duty have been levelled against the applicants, as according to the respondent, actual value of goods imported by undervaluation on the basis of using fabricated invoices is Rs.11,93,03,316/- […]
Shikha Sharma Bagga Vs Union of India and Anr (Delhi high court) High Court in a Interim order Observed that A perusal of Section 7(1) (b) of the Companies Act, 2013, clearly shows that Advocates can file documents for incorporation of a Company. This would be true even in the case of LLPs. The MCA’s […]
Where Input Tax Credit (ITC) had been wrongly availed exceeds Rs.5 crores it would amount to a cognizable and non-bailable offense and the offence was punishable with imprisonment for a term, which could extend to five years and with fine under section 132 (1) (i) of the CGST Act.
From perusal of the order passed by the authorities, it is evident that the authorities have accepted the books of accounts produced by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in its order, has admitted that the payment of speed money is a trade practice which is followed by the assessee and similar business concerns functioning for speedy completion of their work.
