One fails to understand why the concerned officer has at all attended the proceedings, if he had not bothered to come with the files. It is evident that the concerned officer must be availing of leave as well as other benefits for the purpose of coming from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad. However, in absence of the files, the entire purpose of coming to the High Court is totally frustrated.
CBDT circular dated 29.02.2016 which requires 20% deposit of tax pending appeal is not rigid and cannot be implemented in all the cases. Based on the facts of the case, the deposit percentage can be increased or decreased.
The order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 281B of the Act has been ceased to have effect after the expiry of six months from the date of the order of the assessment. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner regarding the enforcement of the provisional attachment further would not arise and the same can be allayed with a direction to the respondent- authorities that the said order shall not be enforced until a decision is to be taken by the Appellate Authority on the stay application, if to be filed in the appeal proceedings by the assessee within a period of three weeks as aforesaid and is ordered
Transfer Pricing- No notional interest on transaction of purchase and sale of redeemable preference shares as it was not equivalent to interest free loans advances
Points that emerge for adjudication are whether the search and seizure under GST was carried out by observing the ‘substantive due process’ as well as the ‘procedural due process.’
Union of India Vs Shiyaad (Kerala High Court) Respondents, members of the Plastic Recycling Industrial Association’ had sent a representation to the GST Council on 27.07.2017 by post alleging that levy of 18% GST on recycled plastic products had made adverse impact on that industry; that a prayer was made for completely withdrawing levy of […]
Cost imposed of 1 lakh by Delhi High Court on Petitioner for suppressing the fact of filing the same writ earlier before another bench of Delhi HC and withdrawing the same as that Bench seemed unfavorable
The Chamber of Tax Consultants Vs CBDT (Bombay High Court) 1. These Petitions involve similar issues. The Petitioners have challenged certain portion of the central action plan formulated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’, for short). This document contains Chapter 3 pertaining to litigation management. This Chapter provides the target for Appeals to […]
Madras High Court quashes prosecution proceedings initiated under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 for non-disclosure/incomplete disclosure of foreign assets in the Return of Income.
Observing that allegations regarding evasion of tax, against person engaged in the business of hallmarking, can only be with reference to its business activity, Kerala High Court has held that seizure of the gold jewellery, belonging to petitioners but seized from the premises of the hallmarker, was not justified. The Court also observed that goods entrusted by principal, with hallmarker, and covered by delivery challan, cannot be subject matter of confiscation order under Section 130 of the CGST Act, passed in relation to the hallmarker.
