CIT Vs Union Bank of India (Bombay High Court) To align the Income Tax Act with the Companies Act, 1956 it was decided to amend Section 115JB to provide that the companies which are not required under Section 211 of the Companies Act, to prepare profit and loss account in accordance with Schedule VI of […]
In case there was only a survey operation under section 131 and no proceedings were pending at that point of time in assessee’s case, exercising power of search under section 132 by income tax authorities without any satisfaction recorded either of non-cooperation of assessee or a suspicion that income had been concealed by assessee warranting resort to the process of search and seizure made the the process of search and seizure conducted as invalid and to be quashed .
K. Chandrasekaran Vs TRO (Madras High Court) The present impugned order is put to challenge mainly on three grounds. The first ground raised is that the petitioner was not put on notice before passing the impugned order. When such contention is specifically raised by the petitioner, it is the duty of the respondent to place […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Sungard Solutions (I) Pvt Ltd (Bombay High Court) Seat of the Tribunal (in which State) would decide the jurisdiction of the Court to which the appeal would lie under the Act. In the present case, the orders were passed by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal (even if the assessment was […]
CIT Vs M/s. Muthuramalingam Modern Rice Mill (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Conversion of Paddy into Rice by the process of de-husking would amount to “maufacture” as not only the form underwent a change but also the value addition happened by such process as a different commercial article came into being and therefore, assessee was entitled […]
Without going into the issue as to whether the time for the purpose can be extended, as the petitioner has moved the aforesaid application, the Assistant Commissioner/Commissioner GST may consider the above application and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Mkc Traders and Another Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) A perusal of the seizure order and the order passed under Section 129(3) of the Act for the release of the goods reveal that the transporter has not been assigned any role in the entire transaction which had led to the seizure of the […]
CIT Vs State Bank of India (Bombay High Court) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has jurisdiction to examine a question of law, even though raised for the first time before the Tribunal, which arises from the facts as found by the authorities below and having a bearing on tax liability of assessee. Tribunal should not […]
Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) This Court is of the opinion that the AO had to necessarily apply his/her mind to the application for stay of demand and pass appropriate orders having regard to the extant directions and circulars including the memorandum of 29.02.2016. This in turn meant […]
M/s. Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs Superintendent of GST and Central Excise (Madras High Court) In the present case, the Department does not dispute that action was intended or envisaged in the light of Section 132 of the CGST Act, the counter fairly stating that the provisions of Section 132 of the CGST Act were […]
