The bank attachment would be limited to the amounts which were lying to the credit of the petitioner in CC A/c, at the time of freezing and any further credit which may come would not be under attachment.
Seized stock-in-trade under Section 132 within the custody of the Income Tax authority must be released within 120 days. Since the action of Officer to seize jewellery without pre-existing and pre-recorded good reasons to believe was found to be grossly arbitrary, and the entire action was vitiated, in order to discourage the Officer from resorting to unwarranted action of search, Officer must bear the costs of Rs.50,000/- payable to Delhi Legal Service Authority.
Anand Developers challenges IT Act notice for Assessment Year 2012-13. Jurisdictional issues, disclosures, and reopening examined by Bombay to Goa High Court.
National Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India And Anr. (Gauhati High Court) In the given case the issue under consideration is whether the order of moratorium of the National Company Law Tribunal also covers the proceeding pending before the GST authorities under the GST Act 2017? The Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Guwahati Bench […]
The period of 7 days prescribed in rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules for moving the objections to the provisional attachment is merely directory and not mandatory.
Section 68 – Bogus Cash Credit – The expression ‘any previous year’ to mean as not referring to all the previous years, but, the previous year in relation to the assessment year concerned.
As per Section 12 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949, the game involving ‘mere skill’ is exempted from the applicability of the Act/Ordinance and since ‘Dream 11’ game has been held to be a game of skill, no fault can be found by the answering respondents in the activity which is carried out by the private respondents.
Income tax returns are public documents and they can be summoned by the Court. If same are produced before the Court , the same does not result in violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India, as they are Government documents and are accessible to others.
Great Sands Consulting Private Limited Vs Union of India & ors. (Bombay High Court) In this case order cancelling GST Registration has has been passed without considering the reply and on the ground that no reply is filed, the impugned order will have to be set aside and the proceedings will have to be restored […]
Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax Vs Pipavav Shipyard Limited (Gujarat High Court) Conclusion: Fabrication of various cranes which were embedded to earth could be treated as excisable goods within the meaning of Capital Goods defined in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the Cenvat Credit availed of Inputs/Capital Goods like HR Plates, MS Flats, […]
