In other words, time limit has to be computed from the last date of the last month of the quarter which would be the relevant date for the purposes of examining if the claim is filed within the limitation prescribed under Section 11-B or otherwise.
Issue under consideration is whether rejection of benefit under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 merely for mistake in Form SVLDRS-1 is justified in law?
Chambal Fertilisers And Chemicals Limited Vs Union Of India (Rajasthan High Court) The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 96(2) of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for short, ‘the RGST Act’) and Section 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST Act’) to the […]
Since assessee had not disclosed any black money or asset in the income tax proceedings going against him rather he had denied the same, therefore, while respondents may proceed pursuant to the impugned notices dated December 20, 2017 to assessee under Section 10(1) of the Black Money Act calling upon them to produce the details sought for in connection with the assessment for the assessment year 2017-18 under the Black Money Act however, no coercive measures might be taken against assessee if the occasion so arose.
Addition under section 68 for not proving the source of income of partners who have made the deposit with the firm in their capital account could not be made as partners had shown the agricultural income in their personal returns of the past years which had been accepted by the department as such and the partners were all identifiable and separately assessed to tax thus, the source of investment having been explained and therefore, the addition could not have to be considered in the hands of the partners and not in the hands of the firm.
It has become impossible for the petitioner to effect recoveries of debts, owed to it by various institutions, which, in the submission of Mr. Nayar, aggregate to over Rs. 3 crores. In view thereof, the submission of Mr. Nayar is that, as the lockdown has been presently extended till 3rd May, 2020, this matter may be re-notified thereafter and ad interim direction be issued, restraining any coercive action being taken against his client, towards the loans allegedly owed by it, which stand set out in tabular form at page 64 of the writ petition.
In the given case The appellant made a contribution of Rs.1,00,000/- during the year, to M/s.Herbicure Healthcare Bio-herbal Research Foundation, Calcutta. The institution was approved to get the contributions under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
Electrosteel Steels Limited Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) Facts The assessee company had challenged the garnishee order issued u/s 46 of the JVAT Act, asking the respondent Bank to pay into the Government Treasury, the sum of Rs. 37,41,41,602, on account of tax / penalty due under the JVAT Act, from the assessee […]
The object of issuing notifications/circulars dated 27.03.2020 and 17.04.2020 was to provide financial relief in repayment due to COVID-19 to the parties who have availed the term loans and working capital facilities but this relief is not extended towards factoring facilities.
State of Sikkim Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) Conclusion: Levy of license fee on the draw of lotteries under Section 5BA of Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST) Act, within the state of Kerala was prohibited by the virtue of law, so the Kerala Tax under Section 5BA of Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST) […]
