Dulraj U. Jain Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Section 147 / Section 148– Reasons recorded do not specify, prima-facie, the quantum of tax which has escaped assessment but merely states that it would be atleast be Rs.1,00,000/-. Prima-facie, we are of the view that the reasons recorded do not indicate reasonable belief of the Assessing Officer himself to issue the impugned […]
Safa Mill Stores Vs Assistant State Tax Officer, Karukutty (Kerala High Court) 1. The petitioner, a partnership firm, transported certain goods ostensibly from Bombay to Perumbavoor. But when the petitioner tried to unload the goods at Malamury, Perumbavoor, the authorities checked the documents carried along with the goods and found that they did not correctly reflect […]
Truptiben Bakulbhai Pate Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) As assessee had neither filed her return of income declaring loss nor had shown such loss in her books of account, this clearly indicated that assessee deliberately withhold the bank account and transactions recorded therein. Further, as she had not furnished any explanation about non-disclosure of bank […]
As per reports Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of Filco Trade Centre Pvt ltd vs Union of India in Special Civil Application No 18433 of 2017 decided on 5th September 2018 held that Clause (iv) of Section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in transitional credit provisions providing for […]
Hemant Manaharlal Shah (HUF) Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) The Assessing Officer formed a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, on the ground that noticing a big mismatch between the returned income and cash transactions in the assessee’s bank accounts, queries were raised, which remained unreplied. This is contrary to the facts on […]
There is no requirement in law that evidence in support of its case must be produced only at the time when the seizure has been made and not during the assessment proceedings.
Supersmelt Sponge Private Limited. Vs Superintendent, (Anti Evasion), Central Tax, C.G.S.T., Commissionerate, Bolpur & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) It was submitted that, the appeal filed by the petitioner is before a wrong authority. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals), C.G.S.T. Commissionerate, Siliguri has jurisdiction over the subject matter. He submits that, respondent no. 3 as described in […]
Mangalam Alloys Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad-III (Gujarat High Court) The Revenue authorities and the Tribunal concurrently came to the conclusion that the transactions in question were nonexistence. The assessee was not able to establish the actual movement of the goods. When the RTO report strongly suggested that the vehicles in which the […]
Right to education up to the age of 14 years is guaranteed as fundamental right under Article 21A of the Constitution of India and a student cannot be failed up to 8th Class.
Dream Merchant Vs. State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) The features of the event organised by the appellant had been, as noticed, quite different. It had been a ‘fashion show’, where there had been sponsorship and advertisements; where the apparels and dresses of various manufacturers were put in exhibition on mannequins as also on live […]
