In terms of the provisions of section 245H of the Act, no immunity from penalty and prosecution can be granted by the ITSC since the complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under section 276 CC of the Act, was instituted before the receipt of the application under section 245C.
PCIT Vs Hardik Bharat Patel (Bombay High Court) CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2016 dated 29.2.2016 with regard to the issue of taxability of surplus on sale of shares and securities, – whether as capital gain or business income in case of long term holdings of shares and securities i.e in excess of 12 months. […]
In this matter learned counsel for the G.S.T. Council is unable to tell as to whether the Tribunal is constituted or not. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State is also unable to tell as to whether the State has moved in the matter or not.
Mono Steel India Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) 1. Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that for recovery of a sum of rupees three crore and odd, six bank accounts of the petitioner have been provisionally attached by issuing notices under section 83 of the Gujarat Goods and […]
PCIT Vs Vembu Vaidyanathan (Bombay High Court) The controversy between the assessee and the revenue revolves around the question as to when the assessee can be stated to have acquired the capital asset. The assessee argued that the residential unit in question was acquired on the date on which the allotment letter was issued by the […]
Where assessee was given an opportunity to make the disclosure with regard to foreign bank accounts and the amount lying thereat however assessee failed to avail the opportunity to make disclosure with regard thereto while submitting his return in the proceedings under search and seizure and also before Settlement Commission, the authorities was justified to initiate prosecution as per the provisions of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.
Addition made by AO was justified with regard to introduction of bogus share capital in the form of accommodation entries as the transactions done were clearly sham with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus nature.
Ms Napin Impex Private Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of DGST (Delhi High Court) The brief facts are that the petitioner is a registered dealer, which trades inter alia in PVC raisins and other food items such as beverages. The petitioner alleges that its premises were visited by the Revenue authorities on 29.08.2018 when the DGST officials directed […]
Rajesh Jindal Vs Commissioner of Central Tax GST Delhi (West) (Delhi High Court) Counsel for the respondent says that statements have been recorded inter alia of one Sh. Deepak Taneja and Sh. Ravinder Tyagi, both of whom have stated, giving specifics, that the petitioner has threatened them since they were made dummy directors by the […]
Tvl. R K Motors Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) It is also not in dispute that the bill is addressed only to the writ petitioner’s principal office at Sivakasi; delivery alone is to be made at Virudhunagar. I am of the view that even if by mistake, a wrong instruction had been given to the driver of the vehicle to head towards Sivakasi. Still it would not really matter. The only question that the respondent ought to have posed is […]
