Daily Express Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) Section 129 is a self-contained code. It lays down the entire mechanism for provisional release of the goods. Section 129 begins with a non-obstante clause. It stands protected from every other provision. Earlier this Court, on more than one occasion, has held that unfilled Part […]
PCIT Vs Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) Section 292BB does not dispense with issuance of any notice that is mandated to be issued under the Act, but merely cures the defect of service of such notice if an objection in such regard is not taken before completion of assessment or reassessment as time […]
Delhi HC to examine validity of Circular No.07/07/2017-GST & Rule 61(5). Challenge on due date for filing GST return and delegation of authority. Next hearing on 12th February, 2019.
Claim for deduction under section 35(2AB) could not be defeated on the ground that approval from prescribed authority was granted in the year subsequent to the financial year in which the expenditure was incurred.
In the present cases on hand, the request made by the writ petitioner had been complied with and the reasons for reopening of the escaped assessment had been communicated to the writ petitioner. The said propositions are very well recognised by the Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Thus the very provision stating that the Assessing Officer should record the reasons does not mean that the same should be communicated along with the notice itself.
High Court held that Section 111(m) of Customs Act can only be invoked if goods do not correspond in respect of value or any other particular with the Entry made under the Act
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. M/s. Crescendo Associates (Bombay High Court) 1. This Appeal under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944 read with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenges the order dated 15 September 2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). 2. The Revenue in […]
Timexo Fasteners India (P.) Ltd. Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Petitioners alleged that the vehicle with the goods had entered Kanpur at 8.00 p.m. on 10.11.2018 much before the period mentioned in the e-way bill had expired which fact remains unanswered in the instructions, we are of the opinion that the seizure of […]
CIT Vs Infosys Technologies Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Payment for bandwidth charge utilization was royalty and TDS was required to be deducted under section 195 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and on failure to deduct TDS, the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was rightly made by the Assessing Officer. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER […]
Hotel Harisree Vs Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) (Kerala High Court) The petitioner, a registered dealer under the KGST Act on the rolls of the 1st respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order, before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating its grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before […]
