Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr. (Calcutta High Court) By an amendment an existing Act is supplemented by new provisions adding to or subtracting from it. It is usual that parts of the existing Act are retained. Say for example, there is a provision in the existing Act for penalty in […]
CIT (Exemptions) Vs Baroda Cricket Association (Gujarat High Court) 1. By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellant Revenue has challenged the order dated 11.06.2019 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘B’ in ITA No.2675/Ahd/2017 for assessment year 2014-15 by proposing the following three questions stated […]
Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) (i) Section 129 of the Act talks about detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit. On the other hand, Section 130 talks about confiscation of goods or conveyance and levy of tax, penalty and fine thereof. Although, both the sections start […]
When resulting company had not received notice of reopening of assessment of amalgamating company, then, order of assessment that came to be passed pursuant to the notice of reopening of assessment, was not against the resulting company, thus, notice of recovery was set aside and attachment of the resulting company’s bank accounts was lifted.
When the excess stocks were found during the Survey, there was no question of allowing the assessee to record any additional purchases because such purchases had already been recorded in the books of account of the assessee. Therefore, the excess stock, per se, had to be naturally brought to tax as ‘undisclosed income’ by itself and there was no question of any corresponding deduction from that in such cases. Hence, revenue was justified in bringing to tax the undisclosed Income under section 69C.
Assessee was entitled to claim refund of service tax on composite contract of immovable property including value of land as merely because assessee made the payment, it would not partake the character of service tax and the department could not retain the amount paid by assessee which was in fact not payable by them.
CBI Vs. Devendra Chaturvedi (Special Court for CBI at Greater Bombay) In nutshell, it is the allegation against accused that they conspired to cheat the Income Tax Department and in collusion with each other during the relevant period accused No.1 prepared income tax returns with the assistance of accused No.2 in the name of accused […]
Kalpaka Distrbutors Pvt Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that since it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein did attempt to upload the necessary details in the system maintained by the respondents, […]
Re-assessment even if in case where return was not scrutinized before the income chargeable to tax had escaped before acceptance originally could not be made unless AO has reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped, therefore, for mere verification or for fishing inquiry, reopening of assessment was not permissible.
Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Punjab & Haryana High Court) In the given case the petitioner is manufacturing lead ingots, red oxide and grey oxide. On 27.03.2018, officials of Respondent/GST Directorate searched premises of the Petitioner and during search seized record. The Respondent time to time directed […]
