M/S Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt Ltd Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) Core Question as the petitioners put it,is does the State have the legislative competence to enact section 174 and save the past taxation events—comprising levy, assessment, and recovery—when Entry 54, List II, which is the field of legislation empowering the State, stood […]
Rejection of IGST refund without considering assessee’s reply and also without affording an opportunity of personal hearing was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, matter was remanded back for reconsideration to decide the refund claim on merits within the stipulated period.
CIT Vs Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. (High Court Madras) n order to get over the legal embargo which permitted such expense to be allowable as a deduction, the Income Tax Act was amended and Section 35DDA was introduced by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f 01.04.2001. Thus, in our considered view, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside […]
International Lease Finance Corporation Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court has held that non-commercial re-export of duty-paid goods would be entitled to drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act and that requirement of Guaranteed Remittance was not necessary in a case where the exporter and owner of the […]
Zeenath International Supplies Vs CIT (High Court Madras) Sub-Section (9) of Section 139 of the Act is beneficial provision to the assessee, which provides them an opportunity to rectify the defects. Since the intention being that the assessment proceedings are an outcome of dialogue and discussion, the Assessing Officer is entitled to clarify all issues by issuing notice to the assessee and calling upon them to produce […]
Where assessee could not run the factory during the year because of stay order of court, otherwise its business was continued, in such a case depreciation was to be allowed.
Assessee-employer had contributed a specific amount to each employee which was credited to a Staff Welfare Fund Account alongwith interest thereon and the amounts retained with the employer and the interest accrued in the name of a particular employee, was taxed in the hands of that employee. Hence though there was a common fund and accrual of interest, the same had to be treated as having been credited separately on the employees account in the relevant fund which was permissible for deduction under Section 36(1)(va).
If the dealer is a fly by night operator or a habitual offender or does not have sufficient means to pay the dues that may arise upon assessment, such action may be justified. Such drastic powers under section 83 of the Act should not be exercised as a matter of course, but only after due application of mind to the relevant factors.
Bhupendra Murji Shah Vs DCIT (High Court Bombay) We are not concerned here with the Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. We are not concerned here also with the power conferred in the Assessing Officer of collection and recovery by coercive means. All that we are worried about is the understanding of this […]
M/s Lanco Amarkantak Power Ltd. Vs A.P. Panda, Chairman-cum-Managing Director (Chhattisgarh High Court) it is quite vivid that this Court while granting the appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act of 1996 preferred by the petitioner not only set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge setting aside the award and restoring the […]
